Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 vs. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naive advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) is the standard first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, as compared with gemcitabine, is non-inferior in terms of overall survival (OS) and is associated with lower hematologic toxicity. Accordingly, S-1 is a convenient oral alternative treatment for advanced PDAC. This study was aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) vs. GnP as first-line chemotherapy for advanced PDAC.

Methods

Patients with advanced PDAC who received first-line GS or GnP at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital between March 2011 and November 2022 were evaluated.

Results

A total of 300 patients were assessed, of whom 84 received GS and 216 received GnP. The chemotherapy completion rate was higher with GS than GnP (50.0% vs. 30.3%, P = 0.0028). The objective response rate (ORR) was slightly higher (14.3% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.35), and the median OS was significantly longer (17.9 months vs. 13.3 months, P = 0.0078), in the GS group than the GnP group. However, the median progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between groups. Leukopenia risk was significantly lower in the GS group than the GnP group (14.9% vs. 28.1%, P = 0.049).

Conclusions

As first-line chemotherapy for advanced PDAC, the GS regimen led to a significantly longer OS than the GnP regimen. The PFS, ORR, and incidence of severe adverse events were comparable between the GS and GnP groups.

SUBMITTER: Zhu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10618946 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 <i>vs.</i> gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in treatment-naïve advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Zhu Zhou Z Tang Hui H Ying Jinrong J Cheng Yuejuan Y Wang Xiang X Wang Yingyi Y Bai Chunmei C

Cancer biology & medicine 20230801 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) is the standard first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, as compared with gemcitabine, is non-inferior in terms of overall survival (OS) and is associated with lower hematologic toxicity. Accordingly, S-1 is a convenient oral alternative treatment for advanced PDAC. This study was aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) <i>vs.</i> GnP a ...[more]

PMID: 37646237

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are the 2 common first-line therapies for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (mPC), but they have not been directly compared in a clinical trial, and comparative clinical data analyses on their effectiveness are limited.ObjectiveTo compare the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel treatments of mPC in clinical data and evaluate whether there are differences in overall survival and posttreatment complications between them.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, nonrandomized comparative effectiveness study used data from the AIM Specialty Health-Anthem Cancer Care Quality Program and from administrative claims of commercially insured patients, spanning 388 outpatient centers and clinics for medical oncology located in 44 states across the US. Effectiveness and safety of the treatments were analyzed by matching or adjusting for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, ECOG performance status (PS) score, Social Deprivation Index (SDI), liver and lymph node metastasis, prior radiotherapy or surgical procedures, and year of treatment. Patients with mPC treated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, and followed up until June 30, 2020, were included in the analysis.InterventionsInitiation of treatment with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were overall survival and posttreatment costs and hospitalization. Median survival time was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates adjusted with inverse probability of treatment weighting and 1:1 matching.ResultsAmong the 1102 patients included in the analysis (618 men [56.1%]; median age, 60.0 [IQR, 55.5-63.7] years), those treated with FOLFIRINOX were younger (median age, 59.1 [IQR, 53.9-63.3] vs 61.2 [IQR, 57.2-64.3] years; P < .001), with better PS scores (226 [39.9%] with PS of 0 in the FOLFIRINOX group vs 176 [32.8%] in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group; P = .02), fewer comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index, 0.0 [IQR, 0.0-1.0] vs 1.0 [IQR, 0.0-1.0]), and lower SDI (median, 36.0 [IQR, 16.2-61.0] vs 42.0 [IQR, 23.8-66.2]). After adjustments, the median overall survival was 9.27 (IQR, 8.74-9.76) and 6.87 (IQR, 6.41-7.66) months for patients treated with FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, respectively (P < .001). This survival benefit was observed among all subgroups, including different ECOG PS scores, ages, SDIs, and metastatic sites. FOLFIRINOX-treated patients also had 17.3% fewer posttreatment hospitalizations (P = .03) and 20% lower posttreatment costs (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness cohort study, FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival of approximately 2 months compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and was also associated with fewer posttreatment complications. A randomized clinical trial comparing these first-line treatments is warranted to test the survival and posttreatment hospitalization (or complications) benefit of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer is mostly diagnosed in an advanced stage and treated with systemic therapy with palliative intent. Nowadays, the doublet chemotherapy of Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is one of the most frequently used regimens worldwide, but is not ubiquitarily available or reimbursed. Therefore, we compared the clinical efficacy of Gem-Nab to a historical control of patients treated with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Gem-Ox) at our tertiary cancer center, which was the standard treatment prior to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX.MethodsThis single-center retrospective real world study includes 121 patients diagnosed with locally advanced or primary metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were treated with chemotherapy doublet, with either Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox in palliative first-line. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons were made with log-rank tests. Gem-Ox was considered as standard first line therapy at our institution for patients who were deemed fit for doublet chemotherapy between the years 2006 to 2012. These patients were compared to a cohort of patients treated with the new standard first-line therapy of Gem-Nab between 2013 and 2020.ResultsA total of 554 patients with pancreatic cancer of all stages were screened, and 73 patients treated with Gem-Nab and 48 patients treated with Gem-Ox in the palliative first-line setting were identified and included in this analysis. Patients receiving Gem-Ox had a statistically significantly better performance score (ECOG PS) when compared to the Gem-Nab group (Odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.65, p = 0.005), more often suffered from locally advanced than metastatic disease (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.27-7.91, p = 0.019) and were younger in age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, p = 0.013). Median overall survival (OS) of the whole study cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 8.5-11.6). No statistically significant difference in OS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median OS: 8.9 months (95% CI 6.4-13.5) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 9.5-13.87, p = 0.794, HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.85-1.91)). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in the entire cohort (95% CI 4.9-8.4). No statistically significant difference in PFS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median PFS: 5.8 months (95% CI 4.3-8.2) versus 7.9 months (95% CI 5.4-9.5) p = 0.536, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74-1.67). Zero-truncated negative binomial regressions on OS and PFS adjusting for gender, age, performance status (ECOG PS), and CA19-9 levels yielded no significant difference between Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox.ConclusionFrom our analysis, we could evidence no difference in outcome parameters in this retrospective analysis despite the worse prognostic pattern for GemOX. Therefore, we suggest Gem-Ox as potential first line treatment option for inoperable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, especially if Gem-Nab is not available.

Project description:ImportanceFluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel (GA) are first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer. Their relative efficacy in the setting of localized disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiographic and serologic measures of responses associated with first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or GA, and to determine the association between these drug regimens, putative measures of response, and survival.Design, setting, and participantsThis case series assessed 485 consecutive patients who were diagnosed as having previously untreated localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and who received at least 3 cycles of first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or GA. The median (range) follow-up duration was 33 (2-28) months.ExposuresAdministration of FOLFIRINOX (285 patients [59%]) or GA (200 patients [41%]) as first-line chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresResection rate, radiographic metrics (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.1, and change in tumor volume or anatomic staging), a serologic metric (serum cancer antigen 19-9 level), and overall survival after administration of first-line chemotherapy.ResultsIn total, 485 patients (266 [55%] male) were included in the analysis. Patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were generally younger (median [range] age at diagnosis: 61 [30-81] vs 71 [36-89] years; P = .001) and had better performance status as indicated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale (range 0-4, with lower numbers representing better performance) score of 2 or lower (274 patients [96%] vs 165 patients [82%] P = .001) but more invasive tumors than patients who received GA (91 [32%] vs 90 [45%] resectable tumors; P = .01). After propensity score matching to control for these biases, many objective serologic and radiographic metrics of response associated with administration of FOLFIRINOX or GA-including low rates of local tumor downstaging-did not differ. However, RECIST partial response was more common among patients treated with FOLFIRINOX (27 of 140 patients [19%]) than with GA (8 of 140 patients [6%]; P = .001). Moreover, (chemo)radiation (50% vs 34%; P = .001) was more commonly administered to and pancreatectomy (27% vs 16%; P = .01) was subsequently performed more frequently for patients initially treated with FOLFIRINOX. The overall survival duration of patients treated with either regimen was similar (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.97-2.26; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received FOLFIRINOX or GA as their first line of therapy, FOLFIRINOX was associated with higher rates of RECIST partial response and subsequent pancreatectomy than GA, but the overall survival associated with these regimens was similar.

Project description:BackgroundThere are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada.MethodsThis study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method.ResultsA total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar.ConclusionsGem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Project description:BackgroundIn a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate.ResultsA total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days.ConclusionsIn patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.MethodsA partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model's robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).ConclusionsNALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.