Dataset Information

S-1 Maintenance Therapy After First-Line Treatment With Nab-Paclitaxel Plus S-1 for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In our previous phase II study, nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (NPS) showed encouraging objective response rate (ORR) as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (APAC). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of S-1 maintenance after NPS in APAC and to explore factors predicting survival benefits when using S-1 maintenance.

Methods

Between 2014 and 2018 a total of 182 patients with APAC, who were primarily treated with NPS, were included. For patients without progression or with treatment discontinuation due to any reasons within 4 months during NPS treatment, S-1 monotherapy was administrable as maintenance therapy at the physicians' discretion based on the patients' preference and performance status. Efficacy and safety of S-1 maintenance were investigated.

Results

In 123 patients without progression within 4 months during NPS treatment, 74 received S-1 maintenance and had median progression-free survival of 9.6 months and median overall survival of 16.7 months. Multivariable analysis showed that in patients receiving S-1 maintenance after first-line NPS therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score of 0, non-metastatic disease, and complete or partial response as best response to NPS chemotherapy were independently associated with better survival. The most common all-grade hematological and non-hematological adverse events were neutropenia (82.4%) and peripheral neurotoxicity (66.2%), respectively, and the most common ≥Grade 3 hematological and non-hematological adverse events were neutropenia (40.5%) and peripheral neurotoxicity (6.8%), respectively in patients who received S-1 maintenance.

Conclusions

Our real-world study showed that S-1 maintenance after tumor response or stable disease induced by first-line NPS treatment was effective and well-tolerated for some patients with APAC, which offers a promising alternative treatment strategy with encouraging survival for APAC.

SUBMITTER: Shi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9141286 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

S-1 Maintenance Therapy After First-Line Treatment With Nab-Paclitaxel Plus S-1 for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Study.

Shi Yan Y Han Quanli Q Yan Huan H Lv Yao Y Yuan Jing J Li Jie J Guan Shasha S Wang Zhikuan Z Huang Lei L Dai Guanghai G

Frontiers in oncology 20220513

<h4>Background</h4>In our previous phase II study, nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (NPS) showed encouraging objective response rate (ORR) as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (APAC). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of S-1 maintenance after NPS in APAC and to explore factors predicting survival benefits when using S-1 maintenance.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 2014 and 2018 a total of 182 patients with APAC, who were primarily treated with NPS, were included. ...[more]

PMID: 35646689

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada.MethodsThis study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method.ResultsA total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar.ConclusionsGem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

S-1 Maintenance Therapy After First-Line Treatment With Nab-Paclitaxel Plus S-1 for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

S-1 Maintenance Therapy After First-Line Treatment With Nab-Paclitaxel Plus S-1 for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets