First- and Second-Line Palliative Systemic Treatment Outcomes in a Real-World Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Cohort

The Trends and Outcomes of Initial Palliative Chemotherapy in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer in Korea Based on National Health Insurance Service Data

Background/Objectives: The survival rate of patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) has improved gradually since the introduction of FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + albumin-bound paclitaxel (GnP) regimens. However, the trends and outcomes of initial palliative chemotherapy before and after the advent of these regimens and their contribution to survival rates are not well understood. This study aimed to investigate this in patients with PC in Korea using claims data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS). Methods: Patients diagnosed with PC who underwent initial palliative chemotherapy between 2007 and 2019 were identified from the NHIS database. Patient demographics, comorbidities, chemotherapy regimens, and survival rates were analyzed using follow-up data up to 2020. Results: In total, 14,760 patients (mean age, 63.78 ± 10.18 years; men, 59.19%) were enrolled. As initial palliative chemotherapy, 3823 patients (25.90%) received gemcitabine alone; 2779 (18.83%) received gemcitabine + erlotinib; 1948 (13.20%) received FFX; and 1767 (11.97%) received GnP. The median survival values were 15.00 months for FFX; 11.04 months for GnP; 8.40 months for gemcitabine alone; and 8.51 months for gemcitabine + erlotinib. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for GnP vs. FFX was 1.291 (95% CI, 1.206-1.383) in the multivariate Cox regression analysis of mortality. Radiation therapy (aHR, 0.667; 95% CI, 0.612-0.728) and second-line chemotherapy (aHR, 0.639; 95% CI, 0.597-0.684) were significantly associated with improved survival. Conclusions: Our study found that first-line chemotherapy with FFX was associated with significantly longer survival than the other regimens, although caution is needed in interpreting the results.

Real‑world treatment outcomes among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan: The Tokushukai real‑world data project

The present study aimed to investigate temporal trends in treatment patterns and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. From the Tokushukai REAl-world Data project, 1,093 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1), gemcitabine plus S-1, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, or fluorouracil, folic acid, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) between April 2010 and March 2020 were identified. Stratified/conventional Cox regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between patient- and tumor-related factors, study period, hospital volume, hospital type and first-line chemotherapy regimens. Overall, 846 patients were selected (503 male patients; median age, 70 years) after excluding ineligible patients. Over a median follow-up of 5.4 months, the median OS was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.3-7.4). The median OS for gemcitabine, S-1, gemcitabine plus S-1, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX regimens was 5.9, 5.3, 7.7, 9.0 and 9.5 months, respectively. The median OS for 2010-2013, 2014-2017 and 2017-2020 was 6.2, 7.1 and 7.8 months, respectively. Performance status, body mass index and first-line chemotherapy regimens were identified to be significant prognostic factors. In summary, the real-world data indicated that standard care, including chemotherapy, for metastatic pancreatic cancer was widely used in hospitals throughout Japan and verified the survival benefits of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX observed in prior clinical trials. This trial has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000050590 on April 1, 2023.

Folfirinox vs. Gemcitabine + Nab-Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC.

Methods

We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model.

Results

A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively).

Conclusion

FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.

Effect of a MUC5AC Antibody (NPC-1C) Administered With Second-Line Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel on the Survival of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) beyond first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), with such individuals commonly being treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether NPC-1C, an antibody directed against MUC5AC, might increase the efficacy of second-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced PDAC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced PDAC between April 2014 and March 2017 whose disease had progressed on first-line FOLFIRINOX. Eligible patients had tumors with at least 20 MUC5AC staining by centralized immunohistochemistry review. Statistical analysis was performed from April to May 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 4-week cycle, with or without intravenous NPC-1C 1.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Pretreatment clinical variables were explored with Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients (median [range] age, 62 [36-78] years; 32 [41%] women; 9 [12%] Black; 66 [85%] White) received second-line treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 40) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C (n = 38). Median OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.3-6.5 months; P = .22) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. Median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 3.4 months (95% CI, 1.9-5.3 months; P = .80) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. The ORR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-19.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C group and 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-18.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group. No differences in toxicity were observed between groups, except that grade 3 or greater anemia occurred more frequently in patients treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C than gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (39% [15 of 38] vs 10% [4 of 40]; P = .003). The frequency of chemotherapy dose reductions was similar in both groups (65% vs 74%; P = .47). Lower performance status, hypoalbuminemia, PDAC diagnosis less than or equal to 18 months before trial enrollment, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio less than 2.8, and CA19-9 greater than 2000 IU/mL were independently associated with poorer survival.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of advanced PDAC, NPC-1C did not enhance the efficacy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. These data provide a benchmark for future trials investigating second-line treatment of PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01834235.

Emerging Role of Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

The aggressive biology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), along with its limited sensitivity to many systemic therapies, presents a major challenge in the management of patients with metastatic PDAC. Over the past decade, the incorporation of combinatorial cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens has improved patient outcomes. Despite these advances, resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy inevitably occurs, and there is a great need for effective therapies. A major focus of research has been to identify molecularly defined subpopulations of patients with PDAC who may benefit from targeted therapies that are matched to their molecular profile. Recent successes include the demonstration of the efficacy of maintenance PARP inhibition in PDAC tumors harboring deleterious BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 alterations. In addition, while therapeutic targeting of KRAS was long thought to be infeasible, emerging data on the efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibitors have increased optimism about next-generation KRAS-directed therapies in PDAC. Meanwhile, KRAS wild-type PDAC encompasses a unique molecular subpopulation of PDAC that is enriched for targetable genetic alterations, such as oncogenic BRAF alterations, mismatch repair deficiency, and FGFR2, ALK, NTRK, ROS1, NRG1, and RET rearrangements. As more molecularly targeted therapies are developed, precision medicine has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of patients with metastatic PDAC.

The fear of cancer recurrence and progression in patients with pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

It is plausible that patients with pancreatic cancer experience fear of tumor recurrence or progression (FOP). The aim of this study was to compare FOP in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with surgical resection, palliative systemic treatment, or best supportive care (BSC) and analyze the association between quality of life (QoL) and FOP and the effect of FOP on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

This study included patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2015 and 2018, who participated in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP). The association between QoL and WOPS was assessed with logistic regression analyses. OS was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log-rank tests and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted for clinical covariates and QoL.

RESULTS

Of 315 included patients, 111 patients underwent surgical resection, 138 received palliative systemic treatment, and 66 received BSC. Patients who underwent surgical resection had significantly lower WOPS scores (i.e., less FOP) at initial diagnosis compared to patients who received palliative systemic treatment or BSC only (P < 0.001). Better QoL was independently associated with the probability of having a low FOP in the BSC (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98) but not in the surgical resection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.01) and palliative systemic treatment groups (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00). The baseline WOPS score was not independently associated with OS in any of the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Given the distress that FOP evokes, FOP should be explicitly addressed by health care providers when guiding pancreatic cancer patients through their treatment trajectory, especially those receiving palliative treatment or BSC.

Sex, Gender and Age Differences in Treatment Allocation and Survival of Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Nationwide Study

Background

Biological sex, gender and age have an impact on the incidence and outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study is to investigate whether biological sex, gender and age are associated with treatment allocation and overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in a nationwide cohort.

Methods

Patients with synchronous metastatic pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The association between biological sex and the probability of receiving systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Kaplan Meier analyses with log-rank test were used to describe OS.

Results

A total of 7470 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were included in this study. Fourty-eight percent of patients were women. Women received less often systemic treatment (26% vs. 28%, P=0.03), as compared to men. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for confounders showed that women ≤55 years of age, received more often systemic treatment (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.24-2.68) compared to men of the same age group. In contrast, women at >55 years of age had a comparable probability to receive systemic treatment compared to men of the same age groups. After adjustment for confounders, women had longer OS compared to men (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93).

Conclusion

This study found that women in general had a lower probability of receiving systemic treatment compared to men, but this can mainly be explained by age differences. Women had better OS compared to men after adjustment for confounders.

C-Reactive Protein and C-Reactive Protein-Based Scores to Predict Survival in Esophageal and Junctional Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a poor prognosis; predictive markers of prognosis would facilitate advances in personalized therapy. C-reactive protein (CRP) and CRP-based scores are increasingly recommended across oncology; however, their role and value in EAC is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined CRP cut-point and scores and how they may best be applied in predicting survival in EAC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and CINAHL databases, from inception to 1st October 2020. Studies reporting data from adults with EAC including adenocarcinoma of the gastro-esophageal junction (AEG), pre-treatment CRP or CRP-based score and Hazard Ratio (HR) for survival were included. QUIPS tool assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 819 records were screened. Eight papers were included, with data for 1475 people. CRP cut-points ranged from 2.8 to 10 mg/L. The Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and modified GPS were the most commonly reported scores. On meta-analysis, elevated preoperative GPS/mGPS was significantly associated with worse overall survival (hazards ratio [HR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.62, p = 0.002); results were similar in subgroup analyses of multimodal treatment, M0 disease, and R0 resection.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review to evaluate comprehensively the evidence for CRP and CRP-based scores in EAC. Meta-analysis demonstrated that elevated preoperative GPS or mGPS was significantly associated with reduced overall survival in EAC, including AEG. There is insufficient evidence to support use of CRP alone. Future studies should examine GPS/mGPS in EAC prospectively, alone and combined with other prognostic markers.