Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and aim
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal cancers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the mainstream treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer. This systematic review evaluated and compared the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes obtained from recent phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of pancreatic cancer chemotherapy.Materials and methods
Thirty-two studies were included and compared based on chemotherapy agents or combinations used. Additionally, outcomes of first-line versus second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer were compared.Results
In studies that investigated the treatments in adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for S-1 in patients, who received prior surgical resection (46.5 months). In neoadjuvant settings, the combination of gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine prior to the surgical resection had promising outcomes (OS of 32.5 months). In non-adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for the combination of temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months). Amongst studies that investigated second-line treatment, the highest OS reported was for the combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (35.5 months), then temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months).Conclusions
There is a need to develop further strategies besides chemotherapy to improve the outcomes in pancreatic cancer treatment. Future studies should consider surgical interventions, combination chemotherapy, and individualized second-line treatment based on the prior chemotherapy.
SUBMITTER: Hajatdoost L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6122094 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.ResultsThe search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.ConclusionsIn the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.
| S-EPMC4097092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:There are no randomized data to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma following first-line FOLFIRINOX. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX to assess treatment efficacy and toxicity. Methods:We included studies published between 2011 and 2018 that evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), any grade 3/4 toxicity rate, and progression-free survival (PFS). We used the random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions. Results:Sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, ORR was 10.8%, DCR was 41.1%, and any grade 3/4 toxicity rate was 28.6%. In subgroup analyses, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with superior ORR (14.4 versus 8.4%; p?=?0.038) and DCR (53.5 versus 30.5%; p?<?0.001) compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Median PFS ranged from 1.9 to 6.4?months and numerically favored gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Conclusions:Our study suggests gemcitabine-based chemotherapy likely outperforms best supportive care after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer. Also, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel seems to be more active than single-agent gemcitabine (CRD42018100421).
| S-EPMC7052451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role of consolidation chemoradiation (CCRT) after systemic chemotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is still controversial. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of CCRT in LAPC using systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Prospective clinical trials of LAPC receiving chemotherapy with or without subsequent CCRT were included in the analysis. We systematically searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary outcome of interest was 1-year survival. Secondary endpoints were median overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, and resection rate.Forty-one studies with 49 study arms were included with a total of 1,018 patients receiving CCRT after induction chemotherapy (ICT) and 954 patients receiving chemotherapy alone. CCRT after ICT did not improve 1-year survival significantly in LAPC patients compared with chemotherapy alone (58% vs. 52%). ICT lasted for at least 3 months revealed significantly improved survival of additional CCRT to LAPC patients compared to chemotherapy alone (65% vs. 52%). A marginal survival benefit of consolidation CCRT was noted in studies using maintenance chemotherapy (59% vs. 52%), and fluorouracil-based CCRT (64% vs. 52%), as well as in studies conducted after the 2010 (64% vs. 55%).The survival benefit of ICT+CCRT over chemotherapy alone in treating LAPC was noted when ICT lasted for at least 3 months. Fluorouracil-based CCRT, and maintenance chemotherapy were associated with improved clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC5912129 | biostudies-other
Project description:To present a systematic review of techniques and clinical results.A systematic review of published literature was performed. Only studies reporting patient outcome after radiosurgery (single fraction) delivered with robotic devices [i.e., robotic radiosurgery (RRS)] have been analyzed.A total of 96 patients from 5 studies were included. The studies are characterized by small series and different methods in terms of dose, target definition, combination with chemotherapy and/or standard fractionated radiotherapy and evaluation modalities. Preliminary results are positive in terms of tumor response (ORR = 56%) and local control of the tumor (crude rate of local progressions: 19.5%). Results for median overall survival (11.4 mo) seem comparable with the ones of prolonged chemoradiation (range: 8.6-13.0 mo). However, gastrointestinal toxicity seems to be the main limitation of RRS, especially at the duodenal level.RRS allows for local treatment in a shortened time (1 fraction) compared to traditional treatments (about 1 mo), providing the possibility for an easy integration with systemic therapies. Preliminary results did not show any outcome differences compared to standard chemoradiation. Thus, further efforts to reduce gastrointestinal toxicity are strongly needed.
| S-EPMC4541395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) carry the highest risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) amongst all cancer patients. Appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis might significantly and safely reduce its burden. We performed a systematic review of published studies and meeting abstracts using MEDLINE and EMBASE through July 2020 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to estimate the pooled event-based risk ratio (RR) and the pooled absolute risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Five randomized controlled studies with 1003 PC patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, thromboprophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of VTE (pooled RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19-0.51, p < 0.00001, I2 = 8%; absolute RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12--0.05, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), with an estimated number needed to treat of 11.9 patients to prevent one VTE event. Similar reductions of VTE were observed in studies with parenteral (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53) versus oral anticoagulants (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.99) and in studies using prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) versus supra-prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.90). The pooled RR for major bleeding was 1.08 (95% CI 0.47-2.52, p = 0.85, I2 = 0%) and the absolute RD was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02-0.03, p = 0.85, I2 = 0%). Evidence supports a net clinical benefit of thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Adequately powered randomized phase III studies assessing the most effective anticoagulant and the optimal dose, schedule and duration of thromboprophylaxis to be used are warranted.
| S-EPMC7464699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronomodulated chemotherapy aims to achieve maximum drug safety and efficacy by adjusting the time of treatment to an optimal biological time as determined by the circadian clock. Although it is a promising alternative to conventional (non-time-stipulated) chemotherapy in several instances, the lack of scientific consensus and the increased logistical burden of timed administration limit the use of a chronomodulated administration protocol. OBJECTIVE:With the goal to increase scientific consensus on this subject, we plan to conduct a systematic review of the current literature to compare the drug safety and efficacy of chronomodulated chemotherapy with those of conventional chemotherapy. METHODS:This systematic review will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. In order to identify relevant studies, we conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Embase on May 18, 2020. We included clinical studies that compare either the safety or efficacy of chronomodulated chemotherapy with that of conventional chemotherapy. Potential studies will be reviewed and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Quality assessment will be performed using the National Institutes of Health's Study Quality Assessment Tool (Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies). Disagreements will be resolved by consulting a third independent reviewer. RESULTS:This protocol has received funding, and the search for studies from databases commenced on May 18, 2020. The systematic review is planned to be completed by October 31, 2020. CONCLUSIONS:In this systematic review, we will compare drug safety and drug efficacy for cancer patients who were administered either chronomodulated chemotherapy or conventional chemotherapy. Moreover, we will highlight the outcomes and quality of the selected trials for this review. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020177878; https://tinyurl.com/y53w9nq6. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/18023.
| S-EPMC7641776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWhile primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) is considered the standard of care for women who present with stage IV endometrial cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) has emerged as an alternative treatment strategy. We summarized the literature and compared outcomes of PCS compared to NACT and ICS.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for articles published from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2020. Key search terms included multiple descriptors of advanced disease status in combination with "endometrial cancer" and "neoadjuvant chemotherapy". Our review included studies that examined survival and surgical outcomes of patients with stage III or IV endometrial cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery versus those who received primary cytoreductive surgery. We excluded studies examining only patients with leiomyosarcomas, carcinosarcomas, and stromal sarcomas due to the biologic heterogeneity of these malignancies.ResultsThe nine included studies encompassed 5,844 patients, of which 1,317 (22.5%) received NACT and 4,527 received PCS (77.5%). With the exception of a single study, all were retrospective observational studies or case series. Use of NACT in patients with stage IV EC increased from 16.0% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. Five studies analyzed median overall survival and all but one reported no significant difference between NACT + ICS vs. PCS. Optimal cytoreduction (<1 cm of residual disease) rates were similar across both treatment groups in three separate analyses, however pooled data suggest improved rates of optimal cytoreduction for NACT + ICS vs. PCS patients (81.9% vs. 51.5% respectively). Patients receiving NACT experienced significantly shorter hospital admissions and lower operative times compared to PCS counterparts.ConclusionsNACT followed by ICS reduces perioperative morbidity while offering similar overall survival.
| S-EPMC8601999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women besides basal cell and squamous cell skin cancer. The current systemic therapy guidelines for this heterogeneous disease are mainly based on the molecular subtypes. However, more research is required to improve rates of therapy resistance and prevent side effects. Previous studies have shown that the human gut microbiota may have an important role in carcinogenesis as well as therapy outcomes, but this factor has not yet been integrated into therapy protocols. This systematic review aims to analyze how response rates and side effect profiles of breast cancer systemic therapies may be affected by the gastrointestinal microbiota. A literature search was performed using multiple databases and keywords related to gastrointestinal microbiota, breast cancer, and anticancer drugs. Studies were excluded if they primarily focused on diseases other than breast cancer. Abstracts, reviews, meta-analyses, and animal experiments were also excluded. After screening, nine studies met all selection criteria and included a total of 566 participants. Most studies described the impact of the gut microbiota on therapy response, but a few additionally discussed chemotherapy side effects, probiotics, or antibiotics. In general, diversity and specific microbiota were linked to chemotherapy response as well as prognosis. Microbiota diversity was also predictive of side effects such as neurological symptoms, weight gain, and constipation. The diversity and composition of gastrointestinal microbiota may serve as biomarkers and provide pathways for the optimization of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.
| S-EPMC9760128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pancreatic cancer remains challenging to treat. Over the past decade, there have been some major improvements in systemic therapy. Gemcitabine remains the key drug for both early and advanced cancer but combination chemotherapy is emerging as a new paradigm for patients with good performance status. This review focuses on current chemotherapy status for patients with pancreatic cancer.
| S-EPMC4412866 | biostudies-other
Project description:Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal cancers. These patients often have multiple symptoms, and integrated supportive care is critical in helping them remain well for as long as possible. Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is known to improve overall survival (OS) by approximately 3 months, compared to the best supportive care alone. A 1997 study comparing gemcitabine and fluorouracil treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer patients showed an improvement in OS of 1 month in patients receiving gemcitabine. Over the next 10 years, multiple randomized studies compared singleagent gemcitabine with combination chemotherapy and showed no effective survival improvement. However, the addition of erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, was associated with a significant improvement in OS of approximately 2 weeks. However, adoption of this regimen has not been widespread because of its limited effect and added toxicity. Two clinical trials have recently prolonged OS in advanced pancreatic cancer patients by almost 1 year. The first compared FOLFIRINOX with gemcitabine alone, and was associated with a significant improvement in median survival. The second compared gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with gemcitabine alone, and was associated with improvements in OS. At present, these regimens are considered standard treatment for patients with good performance statuses.
| S-EPMC4849685 | biostudies-literature