Dataset Information

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of S-1-based combination therapy compare with S-1 monotherapy following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: S-1 monotherapy is widely used following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer, especially in East Asia. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether S-1-based combination therapy had better efficacy and safety compared with S-1 monotherapy. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL and subsequently included five trials with a total of 690 patients. The combined hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio; the corresponding 95% confidence intervals of progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall response rate; and grade 3-4 adverse events were examined. Five randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated S-1-based combination therapy significantly increased progression-free survival (HR?=?0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.90, p?=?0.0009) and overall response rate (HR?=?1.74, 95% CI: 1.20-2.52, p?=?0.003). Evidence was insufficient to confirm that S-1-based combined regimens improved overall survival (HR?=?0.87, 95% CI: 0.75-1.00, p?=?0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two treatment arms. In conclusion, S-1-based combination therapy improved progression-free survival and overall response rate compared to S-1 monotherapy with acceptable toxicity.

SUBMITTER: Lu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5105146 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of S-1-based combination therapy compare with S-1 monotherapy following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Lu Sinan S Zhang Yuan Y Zhou Xiaohu X Zhou Dongkai D Yang Qifan Q Ju Bingjie B Zhao Xinyi X Hu Zhenhua Z Xie Haiyang H Zhou Lin L Zheng Shusen S Wang Weilin W

Scientific reports 20161111

S-1 monotherapy is widely used following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer, especially in East Asia. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether S-1-based combination therapy had better efficacy and safety compared with S-1 monotherapy. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL and subsequently included five trials with a total of 690 patients. The combined hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio; the corresponding 95% confidence intervals of progression-f ...[more]

PMID: 27833144

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRigosertib (ON 01910.Na), a first-in-class Ras mimetic and small-molecule inhibitor of multiple signaling pathways including polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), has shown efficacy in preclinical pancreatic cancer models. In this study, rigosertib was assessed in combination with gemcitabine in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Materials and methodsPatients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle plus rigosertib 1800 mg/m(2) via 2-h continuous IV infusions given twice weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle (RIG + GEM) versus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks in a 4-week cycle (GEM).ResultsA total of 160 patients were enrolled globally and randomly assigned to RIG + GEM (106 patients) or GEM (54). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (8% in the RIG + GEM group versus 6% in the GEM group), hyponatremia (17% versus 4%), and anemia (8% versus 4%). The median overall survival was 6.1 months for RIG + GEM versus 6.4 months for GEM [hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.81]. The median progression-free survival was 3.4 months for both groups (HR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.36). The partial response rate was 19% versus 13% for RIG + GEM versus GEM, respectively. Of 64 tumor samples sent for molecular analysis, 47 were adequate for multiplex genetic testing and 41 were positive for mutations. The majority of cases had KRAS gene mutations (40 cases). Other mutations detected included TP53 (13 cases) and PIK3CA (1 case). No correlation between mutational status and efficacy was detected.ConclusionsThe combination of RIG + GEM failed to demonstrate an improvement in survival or response compared with GEM in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Rigosertib showed a similar safety profile to that seen in previous trials using the IV formulation.

Project description:BackgroundGemcitabine (GEM) is used as a standard first-line drug to effectively alleviate symptoms and prolong survival time for advanced pancreatic cancer. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that GEM-based combination therapy is better than GEM alone, while some RCTs have the opposite conclusion. This study aimed to investigate whether GEM-based combination therapy would be superior to GEM alone by a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsAccording to the PICOS principles, RCTs (S) focused on comparing GEM-based combination therapy (I) vs. GEM alone (C) for advanced pancreatic cancer (P) were collected from eight electronic databases, outcome variables mainly include survival status and adverse events (AEs) (O). Review Manager 5.4 was used to evaluate the pooled effects of the results among selected articles. Pooled estimate of hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as measures of effect sizes. Quality assessment for individual study was performed using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias.ResultsA total of 17 studies including 5,197 patients were selected in this analysis. The pooled results revealed that GEM-based combination therapy significantly improved the overall survival (OS; HR =0.84; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.90; P<0.00001), progression-free survival (PFS; HR =0.78; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.84; P<0.00001), overall response rate (ORR; OR =1.92; 95% CI: 1.61 to 2.30; P<0.00001), 1-year survival rate (OR =1.44; 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.03; P=0.04), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the efficacy of GEM plus capecitabine (CAP) and GEM plus S-1 was better than that of GEM alone, while GEM plus cisplatin (CIS) did not achieve an improved effect. GEM-based combination therapy can significantly increase the incidence of AEs, such as leukopenia (P<0.001), neutropenia (P<0.001), anemia (P<0.05), nausea (P<0.001), diarrhea (P<0.05), and stomatitis (P<0.001). No publication bias existed in our meta-analysis (P>0.10).DiscussionOur study supported that GEM-based combination therapy was more beneficial to improve patient's survival than GEM alone, while there was no additional benefits in GEM plus CIS. We also found that GEM-based combination therapy increased the incidence of AEs. Clinicians need to choose the appropriate combination therapy according to the specific situation.

Project description:Ketogenic diets (KDs) are actively being evaluated for their potential anticancer effects. Although KDs are generally considered safe, their safety profile when combined with chemotherapy remains unknown. It is known that a KD enhances the anticancer effect of gemcitabine (2',2'-difluoro-2'-deoxycytidine) in LSL-KrasLSL-G12D/+Trp53R172H/+Pdx-1-Cre (KPC) tumor-bearing mice. In the present study, whether a KD in combination with gemcitabine affected the liver safety profile in KPC mice was evaluated. For this purpose, male and female pancreatic tumor-bearing KPC mice were allocated to a control diet (CD; % kcal: 20% fat, 65% carbohydrate, 15% protein) + gemcitabine [control plus gemcitabine group (CG)] or a KD (% kcal: 84% fat, 15% protein, 1% carbohydrate) + gemcitabine [ketogenic plus gemcitabine group (KG)] for two months. After two months of treatment, no significant differences in body weight were observed between CGs and KGs. Moreover, the KD did not significantly alter the serum protein expression levels of liver enzymes, including aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase. In addition, the KD did not alter markers of liver-lipid accumulation as well as serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels, compared with the CG-treated group. Upon histologic examination, steatosis was rare, with no notable differences between treatment groups. When examining liver fatty acid composition, KD treatment significantly increased the content of saturated fatty acids and significantly decreased levels of cis-monounsaturated fatty acids compared with the CG. Finally, the KD did not affect liver markers of inflammation and oxidative stress, nor the protein expression levels of enzymes involved in ketone bodies, such as 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA lyase and hidroximetilglutaril-CoA sintasa, and glucose metabolism, such as hexokinase 2, pyruvate dehydrogenase and phosphofructokinase. In summary, a KD in combination with gemcitabine appears to be safe, with no apparent hepatotoxicity and these data support the further evaluation of a KD as an adjuvant dietary treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Dataset Information

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of S-1-based combination therapy compare with S-1 monotherapy following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Publications

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of S-1-based combination therapy compare with S-1 monotherapy following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets