FOLFIRINOX after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparison with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI schedules
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Foschini F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7533956 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOnly a few clinical trials have been conducted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after failure of first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Therefore, there is no current consensus on the treatment of these patients. We conducted a randomised phase II study of the modified FOLFIRI.3 (mFOLFIRI.3; a regimen combining 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid, and irinotecan) and modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX; a regimen combining folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin) regimens as second-line treatments in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.MethodsThe primary end point was the 6-month overall survival rate. The mFOlFIRI.3 regimen consisted of irinotecan (70 mg m(-2); days 1 and 3), leucovorin (400 mg m(-2); day 1), and 5-FU (2000 mg m(-2); days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. The mFOLFOX regimen was composed of oxaliplatin (85 mg m(-2); day 1), leucovorin (400 mg m(-2); day 1), and 5-FU (2000 mg m(-2); days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks.ResultsSixty-one patients were randomised to mFOLFIRI.3 (n=31) or mFOLFOX (n=30) regimen. The six-month survival rates were 27% (95% confidence interval (CI)=13-46%) and 30% (95% CI=15-49%), respectively. The median overall survival periods were 16.6 and 14.9 weeks, respectively. Disease control was achieved in 23% (95% CI=10-42%) and 17% patients (95% CI=6-35%), respectively. The number of patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity was identical (11 patients, 38%) in both groups: neutropenia (7 patients under mFOLFIRI.3 regimen vs 6 patients under mFOLFOX regimen), asthaenia (1 vs 4), vomiting (3 in both), diarrhoea (2 vs 0), and mucositis (1 vs 2).ConclusionBoth mFOLFIRI.3 and mFOLFOX regimens were tolerated with manageable toxicity, offering modest activities as second-line treatments for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, previously treated with gemcitabine.
| S-EPMC2778540 | 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:BackgroundModified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of evidence to directly compare them, we conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effectiveness and toxicity of modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.MethodsThe eligible retrospective studies on treatments related to modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB up to 4 April 2020 were searched and assessed. We used the frequentist model to analyze the survival and toxicity data between different treatments. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and events of toxicity were analyzed in this study.ResultsTwenty-two studies were involved in this network meta-analysis. The comparisons on OS and PFS showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB had similar treatment efficacy (OS: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.78-1.63; PFS: HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.85-1.67). GEM-NAB was more effective than modified FOLFIRINOX based on the result of ORR (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.96). Moreover, our analysis showed a similar toxicity profile between modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.ConclusionsThe current evidence showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB were similar in survival and toxicity. Many factors should be considered for in the formulation of optimal treatment, and our meta-analysis could provide some guidance to treatment selection in the first-line setting for advanced PC.
| S-EPMC8306351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGemcitabine plus platinum as the first-line chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) has limited efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) compared to that of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (Gemox) for patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA.MethodsFrom January 2016 to December 2019, consecutive patients who were diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic CCA were treated with either mFOLFIRINOX or Gemox as a first-line chemotherapy. The main endpoint was Progression free survival (PFS). The second endpoints were Overall survival (OS), Disease control rate (DCR) and incidence of severe toxicity (grade 3-4). Tumors were evaluated at baseline and thence every 4-6 weeks. The study was designed and carried out in accordance with the principles of the declaration of Helsinki, approved by the Ethics Committee of Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine (XHEC-D-2020-154) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT04305288 (registration date: 12/03/2020).ResultsOf 49 patients in this study, 27 were in the FOLFIRINOX regimen group and 22 in the Gemox regimen group. There were no significant differences between groups in baseline characteristics. The DCR was 77.8% in the mFOLFIRINOX group and 63.5% in the Gemox group. The corresponding median PFS was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3-12.4) in the mFOLFIRINOX group versus 6.4 months (95% CI,3.6-9.2, p = 0.040) in the Gemox group. The corresponding median OS was 15.7 months (95% CI, 12.5-19.0) versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 9.3-14.8, p = 0.099). Significantly more grade 3-4 vomiting occurred in the mFOLFIRINOX than the Gemox groups (7 (25.9%) vs 1 (4.5%), p = 0.044).ConclusionsFirst-line mFOLFIRINOX offered more promising results in patients with advanced or metastatic CCA.
| S-EPMC8283916 | 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:The incidence of pancreatic cancer has dramatically increased over the past years, but the prognosis has not improved. Between 30 and 40% of tumors are considered locally advanced, essentially due to vascular involvement. In recent years, new chemotherapy protocols with high response rates have been developed. FOLFIRINOX seems to be an interesting option in this situation, but hematologic toxicity could be an obstacle to its prescription. Nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine offer significant response rates with a reasonable safety profile. We report here a single-center experience of 2 cases with a locally advanced pancreatic cancer initially considered unresectable, progressive after first-line neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, and then treated with second-line nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC5624236 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10501299 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7364337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.ObjectiveTo derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.Data sourcesAfter a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.Study selectionPhase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.Data extraction and synthesisIndividual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.ResultsA total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
| S-EPMC10774994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRelevant improvement in first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) was provided by FOLFIRINOX and by gemcitabine (gem) plus nab-paclitaxel (Nab-p) regimens. Regardless of the first-line treatment survival benefit, most patients survive less than 1 year.AimThe objectives of this multicenter phase I/II study were to evaluate as first-line chemotherapy (CT) two modified regimens of FOLFIRINOX, replacing either oxaliplatin (Oxa) or irinotecan with Nab-p, in patients with mPC.MethodsThe primary objectives of phase 1 were the definition of the dose limit binations, while for phase II they were the characterization of safety and activity of Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab-FOLFOX in mPC.ResultsSixty-three patients received Nab-FOLFIRI or Nab-FOLFOX in phase I. We defined MTD at 120 mg/m2 for Nab-p with FOLFIRI and 160 mg/m2 with FOLFOX. In phase II, we randomized 42 patients for each arm with the following results: (1) overall response rate (ORR) was 31% for both schedules; (2) a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 69% and 71%; (3) 1-year survival was 41% and 50%; (4) progression free survival (PFS) was 6 months and 5.6 months; (5) median overall survival (OS) was 10.2 and 10.4 months for Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab-FOLFOX, respectively. (6) Neutropenia was the most common grade ≥3 adverse event in our regimens, significantly lower than that reported for the FOLFIRINOX triplet.ConclusionNab-FOLFIRI and Nab-FOLFOX might be hopeful first-line CT options for mPC patients, with promising activity and a good safety profile.
| S-EPMC8161763 | biostudies-literature