Development of second-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

Ma Liwen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1535.2009.03.011

2009-01-01

Abstract:Gemcitabine has been the standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer;however, no standard guidelines for second-line treatment of pancreatic cancer are available.This article reviews the published literature on second-line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Meta-Analysis of Gemcitabine Containing Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Jing Hu,Gang Zhao,Hong-Xia Wang,Lei Tang,Ying-Chun Xu,Yue Ma,Feng-Chun Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-8722-4-11

IF: 28.5

2011-01-01

Journal of Hematology & Oncology

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The objectives of the present study are to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of gemcitabine-based combinations in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA/MPC).METHODS:We performed a computerized search using combinations of the following keywords: "chemotherapy", "gemcitabine", "trial", and "pancreatic cancer".RESULTS:Thirty-five trials were included in the present analysis, with a total of 9,979 patients accrued. The analysis showed that the gemcitabine-based combination therapy was associated with significantly better overall survival (OS) (ORs, 1.15; p = 0.011), progression-free survival (PFS) (ORs, 1.27; p < 0.001), and overall response rate (ORR) (ORs, 1.58; p < 0.001) than gemcitabine monotherapy. Similar results were obtained when the gemcitabine-fluoropyrimidine combination was compared with gemcitabine, with the OS (ORs, 1.33; p = 0.007), PFS (ORs, 1.53; p < 0.001), and ORR (ORs 1.47, p = 0.03) being better in the case of the former. The OS (ORs, 1.33; p = 0.019), PFS (ORs, 1.38; p = 0.011), and one-year survival (ORs, 1.40; p = 0.04) achieved with the gemcitabine-oxaliplatin combination were significantly greater than those achieved with gemcitabine alone. However, no survival benefit (OS: ORs, 1.01, p = 0.93; PFS: ORs, 1.19, p = 0.17) was noted when the gemcitabine-cisplatin combination was compared to gemcitabine monotherapy. The combinations of gemcitabine and other cytotoxic agents also afforded disappointing results. Our analysis indicated that the ORR improved when patients were treated with the gemcitabine-camptothecin combination rather than gemcitabine alone (ORs, 2.03; p = 0.003); however, there were no differences in the OS (ORs, 1.03; p = 0.82) and PFS (ORs, 0.97; p = 0.78) in this case.CONCLUSIONS:Gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine or oxaliplatin was associated with enhanced OS and ORR as compared with gemcitabine in monotherapy, which are likely to become the preferred standard first-line treatment of LA/MPC.
Current Status And Dilemma Of Second-Line Treatment In Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Is There A Silver Lining?

Jie Hua,Si Shi,Dingkong Liang,Chen Liang,Qingcai Meng,Bo Zhang,Quanxing Ni,Jin Xu,Xianjun Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S166405

IF: 4

2018-01-01

OncoTargets and Therapy

Abstract:Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal malignant diseases worldwide. The majority of patients present with advanced disease and, therefore, need palliative chemotherapy. Some chemotherapeutic regimens have been well established as first-line therapies and have been shown to increase survival; however, almost all patients with advanced pancreatic cancer will experience disease progression after first-line therapy. Nevertheless, many patients who retain good performance status after initial treatment remain good candidates for additional therapy. Historically, few studies have assessed second-line therapy, with most reports representing small phase II trials with variable findings; however, clinical research for second-line treatment has increased in the past decade, and several randomized controlled trials using different regimens have been published. The current literature shows varying results on treatment efficacy and tolerability. Thus, we reviewed the published data on the use of chemotherapy in the second-line setting for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.
Advances in Study on Therapy of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

GAO Shuang,XU Leiming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-7125.2012.11.016

2012-01-01

Abstract:Pancreatic cancer is the most lethal type of digestive cancer with a 5-year survival rate of 5%,most patients had distant metastasis when it was diagnosed.Gemcitabine has been the best medicine in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.While gemcitabine-based regimens are currently accepted as the standard first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer,no consensus has been achieved regarding the second-line treatment setting.Therapy of pancreatic cancer may include combined chemotherapy,regional arterial infusion therapy,targeted radiotherapy,HIFU,cryotherapy,PDT and so forth.This article reviewed the advances in study on therapy of advanced pancreatic cancer.
Second-Line Treatment of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Shedding Light on New Opportunities and Key Talking Points from Clinical Trials

Robin Imperial,Osama Mosalem,Umair Majeed,Nguyen H Tran,Mitesh J Borad,Hani Babiker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG.S390655

2024-04-18

Abstract:Despite improvements in overall cancer mortality, deaths related to pancreatic cancer continue to rise. Following first-line treatment, second-line options are significantly limited. Classically, first-line treatment consisted of either gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil based systemic chemotherapy. Upon progression of disease or recurrence, subsequent second-line treatment is still gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy, depending on what was used in the first line and the timing of progression or recurrence. A better understanding of the molecular underpinnings of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has led to new treatment strategies including specifically targeting the desmoplastic stroma, cytokine signaling and actionable mutations. Furthermore, efforts are also directed to enhance the immunogenicity profile of PDAC's well-established immunologically "cold" tumor microenvironment. More recently, the outstanding response rates of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells in hematologic malignancies, have led to clinical trials to evaluate the treatment modality in PDAC. In this review, we summarize recently presented clinical trials for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma with novel treatment approaches in the second line and beyond.
S-1 As Monotherapy or in Combination with Leucovorin As Second-Line Treatment in Gemcitabine-Refractory Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: a Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study.

Feijiao Ge,Nong Xu,Yuxian Bai,Yi Ba,Yanqiao Zhang,Fei Li,Huayan Xu,Ru Jia,Yan Wang,Li Lin,Jianming Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0223

IF: 45.3

2014-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:BACKGROUND:In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 as monotherapy or in combination with leucovorin as the second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease had progressed on gemcitabine treatment.METHODS:The study was a randomized, open-label, controlled study. Patients randomly received S-1 or S-1 in combination with leucovorin (SL arm) in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the 6-month survival rate.RESULTS:A total of 92 patients were randomized to S-1 (n = 47) and SL (n = 45). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two arms with regard to 6-month survival rates (40% vs. 49%), median overall survival (5.5 vs. 6.3 months), median progression-free survival (1.9 vs. 3.0 months), and overall response rate (4.7% vs. 8.3%). The rate of major grade 3-4 adverse events of digestive toxicity was significantly higher in the SL arm than in the S-1 arm.CONCLUSION:Compared with S-1, SL did not improve the survival of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who had failed to benefit from prior gemcitabine treatment, but SL had a higher adverse event rate.
Second-line treatment with a combination of continuous 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin-C (conti-FAM) in gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic and biliary tract cancer

Suee Lee,Sung Yong Oh,Byung Geun Kim,Hyuk-Chan Kwon,Sung-Hyun Kim,Myung Hwan Rho,Young-Hoon Kim,Mee-Sook Rho,Jin-Sook Jeong,Hyo-Jin Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e31818c08ff

Abstract:Background: Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is a commonly used first-line treatment for patients with pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. However, a standard second-line chemotherapy regimen has yet to be developed after gemcitabine treatment. We attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of continuous 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin-C (conti-FAM) as a second-line treatment in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. Methods: Patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary tract cancer who were previously treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were enrolled in the study. Chemotherapy was administered as follows: 5-fluorouracil, 800 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5 over 10 hours; mitomycin-C, 8 mg/m2 on day 1; and doxorubicin, 30 mg/m2 on day 1 every 4 weeks. Results: A total of 31 patients received 95 cycles of chemotherapy. Fifteen of the patients had pancreatic cancer. Eleven of the patients had cholangiocarcinoma. Gallbladder cancer was observed in 5 patients. Four (12.9%) patients evidenced partial responses. Eight patients (25.8%) had stable disease. The median time to progression and overall survival time were 2.3 (95% CI: 1.0-3.6) months and 6.7 (95% CI: 4.4-9.0) months, respectively. Major hematologic toxicities included grade 1 to 2 anemia (64.2%), neutropenia (32.6%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (10.5%). The most frequently detected nonhematological toxicities were grade 2 and 3 nausea/vomiting (35.5%). One patient was diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome after 8 cycles of treatment. Conclusion: The conti-FAM regimen seems to constitute a safe and feasible salvage therapy in patients with advanced bilio-pancreatic cancer who had been treated previously via gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.
Outcome of Advanced Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Gemcitabine and Weekly Paclitaxel As First-Line Treatment

Zhong-Zhe Lin,Chiun Hsu,Yeun-Chung Chang,Chong-Jen Yu,Chih-Hung Hsu,Chia-Chi Lin,Ann-Lii Cheng,Pan-Chyr Yang,Chih-Hsin Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.10.002

IF: 6.081

2008-01-01

Lung Cancer

Abstract:Background: Gemcitabine and paclitaxel are both indicated for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Combinations of gemcitabine and paclitaxel with various doses and schedules were shown to be effective treatment for these patients. Nevertheless, the survival outcome of these patients is not clear.Patients and methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC in a phase If study of weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line treatment were followed until their death. Second- and further-lines of treatment were recorded.Results: Thirty-seven patients receiving a total of 188 cycles of gemcitabine and pactitaxel treatment were accrued. Toxicities were mild. Twenty-three patients had partial response to treatment (overall response rate, 62%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 46-78%). Median time to treatment failure was 6.0 months. Twenty-seven (73%) patients received second-line anticancer drug treatment. Twenty-three (62%) patients were able to receive platinum doublet as second-line chemotherapy. Median survival after second-line treatment was 10.9 months. Median, 1- and 2-year survivals of 37 patients were 16.8 months, 59% and 27%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in median survival between patients who could or could not receive second-line treatment (21.9 vs. 3.1 months, p < 0.00001).Conclusions: Weekly paclitaxel with gemcitabine is effective and well tolerated as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC patients. The favorable survival may be due to platinum doublet second-line chemotherapy. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Exploring Molecular Mechanisms in the Second-Line Treatment of Biliary Tract Malignant Tumors

QianLin Liu,PengFei Zhang,Qiu Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24976/discov.med.202436180.4

2024-01-01

Discovery medicine

Abstract:Biliary tract malignant tumors account for about 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies. Based on anatomical location, biliary tract malignant tumors can be divided into gallbladder carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), hilar cholangiocarcinoma, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical treatment is the main treatment for early-stage biliary malignant tumors, the insidious nature of the disease often leads to late diagnoses, causing many patients missing the window for surgical intervention. Gemcitabine combined with cisplatin serves as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced or unresectable lesions, however, a definitive standard for second-line treatment has not yet been established. In recent years, many advances have occurred in the study of the molecular mechanisms contributing to the occurrence and development of biliary malignancies, providing a foundation for targeted treatments of the disease. This review summarizes the existing literature and explores potential second-line treatment options for advanced biliary malignancies based on our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis and tumor pathology.

medicine, research & experimental
Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine Plus Erlotinib for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yuan Wang,Guangda Hu,Qianqian Zhang,Ning Tang,Jun Guo,Liyan Liu,Xiao Han,Xia Wang,Zhehai Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.s105442

2016-01-01

Abstract:Pancreatic cancer is considered as a chemoresistant neoplasm with extremely dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine is recommended as the standard agent for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. A series of trials have been conducted to improve the outcome of advanced pancreatic cancer with other anticancer drugs in combination with gemcitabine. Unfortunately, the designers of the clinical trials failed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Erlotinib was the first additional drug that improved the overall survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with gemcitabine. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of the combination of gemcitabine with erlotinib (GemErlo) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer using the currently available evidence.
[Efficacy of Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy on Advanced Pancreatic Cancer].

Ji-Fang Gong,Xiao-Dong Zhang,Jie Li,Li-Jun Di,Mao-Lin Jin,Lin Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-467x.2007.08.018

2007-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE:Advanced pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis. Gemcitabine (GEM) can improve the quality of life of pancreatic cancer patients. However, the efficacy of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy is uncertain. This study was to compare the efficacy of GEM-based combination therapy and GEM alone on advanced pancreatic cancer.METHODS:Clinical data of 40 patients with pathologically or clinically diagnosed advanced pancreatic cancer were analyzed. Of the 40 patients, 15 were treated with GEM (1,000 mg/m(2)) alone weekly for 7 weeks followed by a 2-week rest, then received cycles of 3-week administration with 1-week rest; 25 were treated with GEM (1,000 mg/m(2)) weekly for 2 weeks plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (425-600 mg/m(2)) as bolus at Day 1-5 or 120-hour infusion every 21 days, or cisplatin (DDP) (30-37.5 mg/m(2)) at Day 1-2 every 21 days, or oxaliplatin (85-130 mg/m(2)) at Day 1 every 21 days, or capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) twice a day at Day 1-14 every 21 days, respectively. The survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Median time to progression (mTTP), clinical benefit response (CBR), disease control rate, median overall survival (mOS) and toxicity were assessed according to World Health Organization criteria.RESULTS:The rate of CBR was 56.0% in GEM-combination group and 46.7% in GEM alone group. There were no significant differences in disease control rate, mOS, CBR, and adverse events between the two groups (all P>0.05). However, for the patients with stage III-IV advanced pancreatic cancer, the disease control rate was higher in GEM-combination group than in GEM alone group (75.0% vs. 45.5%, P=0.13).CONCLUSION:GEM-combination regimens and GEM alone have similar efficacy, and lead to similar clinical benefit response and mOS for the patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
Recent advances for the treatment of pancreatic and biliary tract cancer after first-line treatment failure

Concetta Elisa Onesti,Adriana Romiti,Michela Roberto,Rosa Falcone,Paolo Marchetti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2015.1081816

Abstract:Here, we evaluate clinical trials on chemotherapy for patients with pancreatic or biliary tract cancer after first-line treatment failure. Clinical trials on conventional and innovative medical treatments for progressive pancreatic and biliary cancer were analyzed. Metronomic chemotherapy, which consists of the administration of continuative low-dose of anticancer drugs, was also considered. A significant extension of overall survival was achieved with second-line, regimens in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. Moreover, many Phase II studies, including chemotherapy and target molecules and immunotherapy, have reported promising results, in both pancreatic and biliary cancer. However, data in these patients' setting are very heterogeneous, and only few randomized studies are available.
A Systematic Review of Chemotherapeutic Regimens Used in Pancreatic Cancer

Nimra Awais,Travis Satnarine,Areeg Ahmed,Ayesha Haq,Deepkumar Patel,Grethel N Hernandez,Kofi D Seffah,Mustafa Abrar Zaman,Safeera Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.46630

2023-10-07

Cureus

Abstract:Pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor with one of the worst prognosis. Its incidence has been on the rise in recent years. First-line and second-line treatments as well as adjuvant therapies have been employed in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer along with traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy that has been enhanced. The prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still quite bad despite recent improvements in diagnostic and treatment methods. Since most patients are not candidates for treatment with a curative purpose, effective palliative care is crucial. For this systematic review, between December 25, 2022, and January 5, 2023, we searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Science Direct and discovered 225 relevant articles. The appropriateness of the literature abstracts for the pooled analysis was evaluated using different combinations of keywords such as pancreatic cancer, first- and second-line chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and fluorouracil. Eight research studies with a total of 15,236 people, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. The only treatment of choice for patients without metastatic disease who have clinical staging that suggests resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) should be resection. This research examined how first- and second-line chemotherapeutic regimens (using different drug combinations) affected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or BRPC and how they responded in terms of overall survival (OS), tumor resectability, and progression-free interval. The review concludes by highlighting the results of these therapies. Notably, a growing body of research indicates that the two most popular first-line medication combinations GnP and FFX have similar results in RCTs and in real-world populations. Results of second-line therapy after first-line regime failure are still dismal, and there is still a great deal of doubt regarding the best course of action. More RCTs and real-world evidence studies that address current and innovative regimens, as well as the best order in which to administer them, are required, with a greater emphasis on targeted therapy with fewer side effects.
Phase II Study of Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.

Lin Run Wang,Ming Zhu Huang,Guo Bing Zhang,Nong Xu,Xiu Hua Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-007-0504-x

2007-01-01

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

Abstract:PURPOSE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this prospective study, patients with chemonaive advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine at a standard rate (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m2 over 30 min, the standard arm) or a fixed dose rate (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m2 over 120 min, the FDR arm) on days 1 and 8 every 3 week cycle. In both treatment arms, carboplatin at AUC of 5 was administered over 4 h following gemcitabine on day 1 of each cycle.RESULTS:From November 2003 to June 2005, a total of 42 patients, in which 7 (17%) patients had stage III(B) disease and 35 (83%) had stage IV disease, were enrolled into this study. All patients were included in efficacy and toxicity assessment. No patient had a complete response. Seven (33%) patients in the standard arm and 10 (48%) in the FDR arm had a partial response. The median time to progression and median overall survival time in the standard arm was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.8-7 months) and 11.5 months (95% CI, 8.2-14.8 months), respectively, while in the FDR arm was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.4-8.6 months) months, 12.0 months (95% CI, 11.3-12.7 months), respectively. The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicities were thrombocytopenia (38% patients in the standard arm and 43% in the FDR arm) and neutropenia (24% in the standard arm and 33% in the FDR arm). Although hematological toxicity occurred in a little higher percent of patients in the FDR arm than in the standard arm, there were no discernible differences by statistical analysis in both treatment arms (P > 0.05). And significant nonhematologic toxicities were infrequent and tolerable in both arms. No significant difference existed also (P > 0.05).CONCLUSION:In this phase II study, gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin either at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion was clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.
Inferior Survival of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Who Received Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy but Did Not Participate in Clinical Trials

Shih-Hung Yang,Yu-Hsuan Kuo,Yu-Wen Tien,Chiun Hsu,Chih-Hung Hsu,Sung-Hsin Kuo,Ann-Lii Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000330817

2011-01-01

Oncology

Abstract:Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer, even when treated, is highly lethal. The best choice of gemcitabine-based therapy and the prognostic factors affecting the success of treatment remain uncertain. Methods: We identified 159 of 1,475 patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed in our institution and receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy between January 1995 and June 2007. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the prognostic significance of various clinical parameters for overall survival (OS). Results: The median survival after gemcitabine-based therapy was 5.4 months; 89.9% (n = 143) had ductal adenocarcinoma, 55.3% (n = 88) with stage IV. Gemcitabine alone was given to 60 (38%) patients, and gemcitabine with high-dose infusional fluorouracil (5-FU) with (n = 25) or without (n = 39) oxaliplatin was given to 64 (40%) patients. All regimens correlated with OS (p = 0.042) but not with the response rate (RR; p = 0.3). The overall RR was 11.1%, and all responders had a good performance status (PS). The RRs to gemcitabine with infusional 5-FU, and gemcitabine with oxaliplatin and infusional 5-FU were 5.3 and 20.8%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, old age, advanced stage, poor PS and no enrollment in clinical trials were associated with inferior survival. Conclusions: The outcome for patients who did not participate in clinical trials, regardless of gemcitabine-based treatment, is still bleak.
Phase II Trial of a 2-H Infusion of Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin As First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer

N. Xu,P. Shen,X. C. Zhang,L. F. Yu,H. Y. Bao,G. M. Shi,S. Huang,J. Chen,H. B. Mou,W. J. Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-006-0237-2

2006-01-01

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

Abstract:Purpose : To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of using gemcitabine as a rate infusion of 10 mg/m 2 per min with carboplatin in front-line chemonaive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods : Fifty-four chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC have been included, 44 males and 10 females, with a median age 63 years (range 19–75). Thirty-two (59%) patients had adenocarcinoma, 13 (24%) squamous cell, 1 (2%) large cell carcinoma and 8 (15%) others. Eight (15%) had stage IIIB and 46 (85%) stage IV. Treatment was consisted of 1,200 mg/m 2 gemcitabine given as a 2-h continuous infusion (10 mg/m 2 per min) on days 1 and 8 of each cycle an AUC 5 carboplatin as on day 1, repeating each cycle for every 21 days. A total of 223 chemotherapy cycles were administered, with a median of four cycles per patient (range 1–6), and 15 (28%) patients received all six cycles. Results : Of the 54 patients enrolled, all were evaluated for toxicity and 51 assessed for response. The overall response rate was 41% (95% confidence interval, 28–57%) with complete and partial responses of 4 and 37%, respectively. The median time to disease progression was 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.7–6.3 months), and median overall survival time was 11.5 months (95% CI, 9.9–13.1 months). One-year survival was 42%. The main grade 3–4 toxicity (according to the WHO scale) consisted of neutropenia (56%) and thrombocytopenia (57%). Patients were required platelet transfusion in 27 cycles (12%) and hematopoietic growth factors support care in 56 (25%) cycles. No bleeding episodes were recorded. Grade 3 nausea/vomiting occurred in 6% and grade 1–2 skin rash occurred in 43%. Conclusions : Prolonged gemcitabine infusion combined with carboplatin is manageable and tolerated, and its efficacy is similar to that of other chemotherapeutic schemes used for NSCLC treatment.
Adjuvant Therapy with Gemcitabine and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Gemcitabine Alone for Resected Stage II Pancreatic Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Open Label, Single-Center Trial.

Ma Tao,Bai Xueli,Wei Qichun,Shui Yongjie,Lao Mengyi,Chen Wen,Huang Bingfeng,Que Risheng,Gao Shunliang,Zhang Yun,Chen Wei,Wang Ji,Liang Tingbo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09974-7

IF: 3.842

2019-01-01

HPB

Abstract:e15765 Background: Although adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine has for years been the standard of care for resected pancreatic cancer, the role of adjuvant radiation is still debatable. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of gemcitabine combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as adjuvant therapy for resected stage II pancreatic cancer. Methods: This single center randomized controlled trial was designed to enroll 512 patients with stage II pancreatic cancer that underwent curative-intended radical resection from a large-volume tertiary pancreatic center in China. Patients were randomly assigned to gemcitabine-alone adjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant SBRT (25 Gray in 5 fractions) followed by gemcitabine chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events. Interim analysis was planned at the time of 2.5-years’ enrollment. Results: 40 patients were randomly assigned to treatment between Sep 1, 2015, and Mar 31, 2018 (21 to the gemcitabine group and 19 to the gemcitabine plus SBRT group). Of these, one was excluded because of ineligibility and one did not receive any treatment. The median RFS was 12.4 (9.3-15.6) months in the gemcitabine group and 14.7 (9.2-20.1) months in the gemcitabine plus SBRT group ( P= 0.753), with median LRFS of 18.2 (14.6-21.7) months in the gemcitabine group and 13.1 (9.1-16.8) months in the gemcitabine plus SBRT group ( P= 0.333). The median OS was 21.7 (19.5-24.0) months in the gemcitabine group and 16.9 (12.8-20.9) in the gemcitabine plus SBRT group ( P= 0.066). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea or vomiting, and liver dysfunction were all comparable between the two groups. Evaluation of data from the first 40 enrolled patients indicated that the addition of adjuvant SBRT was not associated with either better local disease control or recurrence free survival. And because of failure to achieve the accrual target, the trial was terminated prematurely. Conclusions: Adjuvant SBRT neither provided a survival benefit nor improved local disease control in resected stage II pancreatic cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02461836.
Advances in palliative chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

Yi-yi FU,Tian-shu LIU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-3639.2009.08.006

2009-01-01

Abstract:With a high invasive ability and poor prognosis, the morbidity of pancreatic cancer is about 98%.Combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is the primary management for locoregionally advanced pancreatic cancer, but its efficacy is limited. Results from a number of meta-analysis have confirmed that gemcitabine is associated with significantly better clinical response and one-year overall survival rates;therefore, currently gemcitabine is the standard chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine-based multi-drug regimens may have potentially favorable effects on patients' survival. However, evidence from phase Ⅲ clinical trials is lacking. Newer chemotherapy and targeted therapy agents are clearly needed for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
Discussion on gemcitabine combined with targeted drugs in the treatment of pancreatic cancer

Jun-Hao Huang,Wei Guo,Zhe Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v29.i3.579

IF: 5.374

2023-01-21

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor with poor prognosis. The treatment of pancreatic cancer depends on the tumor stage and type, and includes local treatment (surgery, radiotherapy and ablation intervention) and systemic therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy). We read with great interest the review "Effective combinations of anti-cancer and targeted drugs for pancreatic cancer treatment" published on <i>World J Gastroenterol</i> and intended to share some of our perspectives in pancreatic cancer treatment. This review presents the therapeutic effects of the combination of gemcitabine and targeted drugs, which gives us a deeper insight into the combination treatments for pancreatic cancer.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Progress of medical treatment of advanced pancreatic carcinoma

焦锋,韩婷,崔玖洁,王理伟

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2017.07.11

2017-01-01

Abstract:Most patients of pancreatic carcinoma are local advanced or distant metastasis occurred when diagnosed,and they don't have the chance to operate,with a poorer diagnosis. Positive internal medical treatment could prolong the overall survival time,and promote quality of life and improve the patients' life status. At present,the major therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer is gemcitabine-based combination treatment. For patients with a better ECOG performance status, the first line therapy could select FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine combined nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine combined fluorouracil,etc. For patients with worse ECOG performance status,single medication such as gemcitabine or fluorouracil. For patients with specific targeted genes,chemotherapy and targeted therapy could be combined,such as gemcitabine combined with erlotinib. The second line therapy is based on the first line therapy selection. Nanoliposomal irinotecan, gemcitabine, fluorouracil and irinotecan are now recommended. In the future,the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma should be based on the translational medicine,regarded the pancreatic cancer patients as a whole, focusing on microenvironment and immunological regulation. New treatments appliance and new targeted therapy should be explored,and clinical trials are strongly recommended. The final aim is to realize personal precision treatment instead of traditional diagnostic procedure.
Second-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A mono-institutional retrospective experience.

Giovanni Trovato,Maria Bensi,Viria Beccia,Alexia Spring,Diletta Barone,Anna Ceccarelli,Serena Perazzo,Gloria Messina,Laura Chiofalo,Cinzia Bagalà,Giuseppe Quero,Sergio Alfieri,Giampaolo Tortora,Lisa Salvatore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.606

IF: 45.3

2024-01-23

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:606 Background: Only few randomized clinical trials have been conducted for second line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). In these studies, elderly patients are poorly represented, even if the median age at diagnosis of APC is increasing; therefore, limited efficacy and safety data are available. Here, we present a retrospective monocentric analysis of second line chemotherapy in elderly patients treated at our Hospital. Methods: This study included patients with APC and aged>70 years old receiving a second-line chemotherapy for APC at our institution from March 2015 to August 2020. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival to second line (PFS2) and overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoint was safety. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate efficacy outcome; log-rank test and Cox-regression model were used to compare the differences, considering a statistically significant p value < 0.05. Results: 169 pts affected with APC received first-line chemotherapy and 61 of them (36%) received second-line therapy. The median age at diagnosis was 74 Years (70-83), 31 (50%) were female; ECOG PS was 0-1 in 44 pts (59%), 41% had at least 2 comorbidities. The regimens of chemotherapy used were: mFOLFOX (28; 46%), Gemcitabine (11; 18%), Capecitabine (15; 24.6%), FOLFIRI (6; 9.8%), mFOLFIRINOX (1; 1.6%). 4 pts (6.6%) had a partial response and 22 (36.1%) had a stable disease, with a disease control rate of 42.7%. The median follow-up was 22.8 months; median PFS2 was 4.5 months (IC 95%: 2.5-6.5) and median OS was 15.4 months (IC 95%: 7.2-23.6). At the univariable analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in mPFS2 according to ECOG PS (0-1 vs 2: 5.3 [IC 95%: 3.5-7.0] vs 2.2 [IC 95%: 1.2-5.4] months; p 0.02) and number of metastatic sites at the beginning of second line therapy (1 vs 2 or more: 5.8 [IC 95%: 4.8-6.7] vs 3.4 [IC 95%: 3.1-3.8] months; p 0.006). At the multivariable analysis, both number of metastatic sites and ECOG PS were confirmed associated with mPFS2. Number of metastatic sites and ECOG PS were both also associated with mOS. No unexpected adverse events were reported, and no patients had to interrupt treatment due to toxicity. Conclusions: In our experience, only about a third of elderly pts with APC received second-line therapy; in these patients, ECOG PS, disease’s burden and the response to therapy are all positive prognostic factors. With regard to the safety profile, older age does not seem to negatively increase serious toxicities. In conclusion, elderly pts should not be precluded from an active treatment (also in later lines setting) and careful patients selection should guide treatment indication.

oncology

Development of second-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

A Meta-Analysis of Gemcitabine Containing Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Current Status And Dilemma Of Second-Line Treatment In Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Is There A Silver Lining?

Advances in Study on Therapy of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Second-Line Treatment of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Shedding Light on New Opportunities and Key Talking Points from Clinical Trials

S-1 As Monotherapy or in Combination with Leucovorin As Second-Line Treatment in Gemcitabine-Refractory Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: a Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study.

Second-line treatment with a combination of continuous 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin-C (conti-FAM) in gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic and biliary tract cancer

Outcome of Advanced Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Gemcitabine and Weekly Paclitaxel As First-Line Treatment

Exploring Molecular Mechanisms in the Second-Line Treatment of Biliary Tract Malignant Tumors

Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine Plus Erlotinib for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

[Efficacy of Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy on Advanced Pancreatic Cancer].

Recent advances for the treatment of pancreatic and biliary tract cancer after first-line treatment failure

A Systematic Review of Chemotherapeutic Regimens Used in Pancreatic Cancer

Phase II Study of Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.

Inferior Survival of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Who Received Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy but Did Not Participate in Clinical Trials

Phase II Trial of a 2-H Infusion of Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin As First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer

Adjuvant Therapy with Gemcitabine and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Gemcitabine Alone for Resected Stage II Pancreatic Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Open Label, Single-Center Trial.

Advances in palliative chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

Discussion on gemcitabine combined with targeted drugs in the treatment of pancreatic cancer

Progress of medical treatment of advanced pancreatic carcinoma

Second-line chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A mono-institutional retrospective experience.