Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 in pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

ABSTRACT: Three randomised trials (GEST, JACCRO PC-01, and GEMSAP) were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) vs gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). In this pooled analysis, the efficacy and safety of GS vs gemcitabine were evaluated.Additional follow-up was conducted and survival data were updated in each study. A total of 770 patients (gemcitabine 389; GS 381) were included in the pooled analysis. The efficacy and safety data were analysed according to disease extent: locally advanced PC (LAPC) or metastatic PC (MPC).There were 738 (95.8%) overall survival events. In patients with LAPC (n=193), the median survival was 11.83 months for gemcitabine and 16.41 months for GS (hazard ratio (HR)=0.708; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.527-0.951; P=0.0220). In patients with MPC (n=577), the median survival was 8.02 months for gemcitabine and 9.43 months for GS (HR=0.872; 95% CI, 0.738-1.032; P=0.1102). The rate of grade 3/4 toxicity (rash and thrombocytopenia in LAPC; rash, diarrhoea, vomiting, and neutropaenia in MPC) was significantly higher for GS than for gemcitabine.Gemcitabine plus S-1 is a viable treatment alternative to gemcitabine, which is one of the standard treatments in patients with LAPC.

SUBMITTER: Hamada C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5518857 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 in pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

Hamada Chikuma C Okusaka Takuji T Ikari Takaaki T Isayama Hiroyuki H Furuse Junji J Ishii Hiroshi H Nakai Yousuke Y Imai Shogo S Okamura Shota S

British journal of cancer 20170504 12

<h4>Background</h4>Three randomised trials (GEST, JACCRO PC-01, and GEMSAP) were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) vs gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). In this pooled analysis, the efficacy and safety of GS vs gemcitabine were evaluated.<h4>Methods</h4>Additional follow-up was conducted and survival data were updated in each study. A total of 770 patients (gemcitabine 389; GS 381) were included in the pooled analysis. The efficacy a ...[more]

PMID: 28472821

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:Background: Non-randomized studies have investigated multi-agent gemcitabine-based neo-adjuvant therapies (GEM-NAT) in borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC). Treatment sequencing and specific elements of neoadjuvant treatment are still under investigation. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of GEM-NAT on overall survival (OS) in BR-PDAC. Patients and Methods: A meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) on GEM-NAT for BR-PDAC were performed. The primary outcome was OS after treatment with GEM-based chemotherapy. In the Individual Patient Data analysis data were reappraised and confirmed as BR-PDAC on provided radiological data. Results: Six studies investigating GEM-NAT were included in the IPD metanalysis. The IPD metanalysis was conducted on 271 patients who received GEM-NAT. Pooled median patient-level OS was 22.2 months (95%CI 19.1-25.2). R0 rates ranged between 81 and 95% (I 2 = 0%, p = 0.64), respectively. Median OS was 27.8 months (95%CI 23.9-31.6) in the patients who received NAT-GEM followed by resection compared to 15.4 months (95%CI 12.3-18.4) for NAT-GEM without resection and 13.0 months (95%CI 7.4-18.5) in the group of patients who received upfront surgery (p < 0.0001). R0 rates ranged between 81 and 95% (I 2 = 0%, p = 0.64), respectively. Overall survival in the R0 group was 29.3 months (95% CI 24.3-34.2) vs. 16.2 months (95% CI 7·9-24.5) in the R1 group (p = 0·001). Conclusions: The present study is the first meta-analysis combining IPD from a number of international centers with BR-PDAC in a cohort that underwent multi-agent gemcitabine neoadjuvant therapy (GEM-NAT) before surgery. GEM-NAT followed by surgical resection improve survival and R0 resection in BR-PDAC. Also, GEM-NAT may result in a good palliative option in non-resected patients because of progressive disease after neoadjuvant treatment. Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited to validate these findings.

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.).

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 in pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 in pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets