Author Correction: C-reactive protein/albumin ratio is the most significant inflammatory marker in unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shirakawa T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10912623 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Author Correction: C-reactive protein/albumin ratio is the most significant inflammatory marker in unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.
Shirakawa Tsuyoshi T Makiyama Akitaka A Shimokawa Mototsugu M Otsuka Taiga T Shinohara Yudai Y Koga Futa F Ueda Yujiro Y Nakazawa Junichi J Otsu Satoshi S Komori Azusa A Arima Shiho S Fukahori Masaru M Taguchi Hiroki H Honda Takuya T Shibuki Taro T Nio Kenta K Ide Yasushi Y Ureshino Norio N Mizuta Toshihiko T Mitsugi Kenji K Akashi Koichi K Baba Eishi E
Scientific reports 20240304 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:There are limited absolute biomarkers for determining the prognosis before first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy in unresectable pancreatic cancer (urPC) patients. To find the best prognostic inflammatory marker, we investigated relationships between overall survival (OS) and six inflammatory markers; C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), prognostic nutrition index (PNI), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), and prognostic index (PI). We examined 255 patients who received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy and 159 patients who subsequently underwent second-line chemotherapy. First-line patients with lower CAR had better OS compared to those with a higher CAR (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% confidential index 0.42-77; P < 0.01). Similarly, lower NLR (P = 0.01), higher PNI (P = 0.04), lower PLR (P = 0.03), GPS score of 0 (P < 0.01) and PI score of 0 (P < 0.01) were all associated with better OS. CAR demonstrated the best superiority for determining survival prognosis through the use of area under the curve of time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic curves. Furthermore, a lower CAR before second-line therapy exhibited better OS versus higher CAR (P < 0.01). Therefore, CAR might be a useful biomarker for predicting urPC patient prognosis in both first- and second-line chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC10232544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no standard second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA), and progression-free survival is consistently <4 months in this setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (A+G) after Folfirinox failure in MPA.MethodsFrom February 2013 to July 2014, all consecutive patients treated with A+G for histologically proven MPA after Folfirinox failure were prospectively enrolled in 12 French centres. A+G was delivered as described in the MPACT trial, until disease progression, patient refusal or unacceptable toxicity.ResultsFifty-seven patients were treated with Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, for a median of 4 cycles (range 1-12). The disease control rate was 58%, with a 17.5% objective response rate. Median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.2-9.7) and median progression-free survival was 5.1 months (95% CI: 3.2-6.2). Since the start of first-line chemotherapy, median OS was 18 months (95% CI: 16-21). No toxic deaths occurred. Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported in 40% of patients, consisting of neutropenia (12.5%), neurotoxicity (12.5%), asthenia (9%) and thrombocytopenia (6.5%).ConclusionsA+G seems to be effective, with a manageable toxicity profile, after Folfirinox failure in patients with MPA.
| S-EPMC4651133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFOLFIRINOX (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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsA 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%.ConclusionOur 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.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT04133155.
| S-EPMC7257856 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9178436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: To compare the overall survival (OS) among patients who received first-line modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G/nab-P) or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: A single-center, retrospective, real-world study was conducted. Results: The median OS was 9.4 months versus 7.5 months in the mFOLFIRINOX and modified G/Nab-P groups, respectively (p = 0.16). An exploratory subgroup analysis excluding patients who received one infusion and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 2 demonstrated similar OS of 11.3 months and 8.9 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival and time-to-treatment failure were not significantly different. Higher rates of adverse events were noted with mFOLFIRINOX. Conclusion: mFOLFIRINOX did not significantly prolong OS compared with modified G/nab-P and was associated with increased toxicities.
| S-EPMC9724069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment outcomes between FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and GNP (gemcitabine with albumin-bound paclitaxel) as first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) were assessed according to ethnic groups categorized as Western or Asian subgroups. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched. Thirteen studies were eligible in this meta-analysis. Overall survival was not significantly different between FOLFIRINOX and GNP (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.20, P = 0.990). However, the Western subgroup showed a higher survival benefit for FOLFIRINOX over GNP (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.95, P = 0.006) whereas the Asian subgroup showed the survival benefit for GNP over FOLFIRINOX (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.60, P = 0.030). Progression free survival was not significantly different between the two regimens in the Western subgroup (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84-1.20, P = 0.950) and the Asian subgroup (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.33, P = 0.110). Occurrence of febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in FOLFIRINOX at both ethnic subgroups; however, that of peripheral neuropathy was significantly higher only in GNP of the Asian subgroup. Therefore, pharmacoethnicity might be a factor worth considering when deciding on a frontline chemotherapeutic regimen although the overall survival was not significantly different between FOLFIRINOX and GNP for metastatic PCs.
| S-EPMC8505398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC).AimThe purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality-of-life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision-making.Methods and resultsWe developed a decision-analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G-nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G-nP. G-nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an "R0" resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G-nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G-nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower.ConclusionOur modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost-effective treatment compared to G-nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC9458514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) has been a standard treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer (uPC); however, the current treatment status and usefulness in older adults with uPC remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the patient background and compare the efficacy and safety of GnP versus other treatments in older adults with uPC.Patients and methodsIn this prospective observational study, we enrolled 233 eligible patients aged ≥76 years with pathologically proven, clinically uPC, and no history of chemotherapy from 55 Japanese centers during September 2018-September 2019. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Geriatric assessments were performed upon registration and after 3 months. To adjust for confounders, we conducted propensity score-matched analyses.ResultsGnP, gemcitabine alone (Gem), best supportive care, and other therapies were administered to 116, 72, 16, and 29 patients, respectively. In the propensity score-matched analysis, 42 patients each were selected from the GnP and Gem groups. The median OS was longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (12.2 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37-1.13). The median PFS was significantly longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (9.2 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.64). The incidence of severe adverse events was higher with GnP than with Gem; however, the difference was not significant.ConclusionGnP is more efficacious than Gem in patients aged ≥76 years with uPC despite demonstrating a higher incidence of severe adverse events.
| S-EPMC9526497 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9346632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas remains - despite the implementation of new chemotherapy protocols - a disease with short overall survival (OS). METHODS:Eighty-three patients were treated with locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas with either FOLFIRINOX or nab-Paclitxel and Gemcitabine (nabPGem) as first- or second line therapy. We analysed the outcome for OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in terms of treatment regimen and sequence. RESULTS:The majority of patients presented in good performance status (PS) with a median age of 68?years. Fourty-two patients received FOLFIRINOX as first-line therapy, 41 patients were treated with nabPGem as first line therapy. Forty-eight patients received both treatments. The OS of all 83 patients was 12.6?months (95% CI: 10.7-14.6), resulting in a 1-year OS of 54%. Forty-eight patients received FOLFIRINOX followed by nabPGem or vice versa. There was no significant difference in OS or PFS for either of the two sequences (p =?0.9). The OS for FOLFIRINOX followed by nabPGem or nabPGem followed by FOLFIRINOX was 13.7?months (95% CI: 12.6-14.7) and 13.8?months (95% CI: 8.6-19), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The sequence FOLFIRINOX followed by nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine or vice versa lead to an equal OS outcome.
| S-EPMC6325849 | biostudies-literature