Choice of first line systemic treatment in pancreatic cancer among national experts.
Decision criteria
FOLFIRINOX
Nab-paclitaxel
Pancreatic cancer
Treatment algorithm
decision-making
Journal
Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.]
ISSN: 1424-3911
Titre abrégé: Pancreatology
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 100966936
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
16
01
2020
revised:
19
03
2020
accepted:
22
03
2020
pubmed:
18
4
2020
medline:
10
4
2021
entrez:
18
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Treatment options for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer depend on various factors, including performance status, tumor burden and patient preferences. Metastatic pancreatic cancer is incurable and many systemic treatment options have been investigated over the past decades. This analysis of patterns of practice was performed to identify decision criteria and their impact on the choice of first-line management of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Members of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) Gastrointestinal Cancer Group were contacted and agreed to participate in this analysis. Decision trees for the first line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer from 9 centers in Switzerland were collected and analyzed based on the objective consensus methodology to identify consensus and discrepancies in clinical decision-making. The final treatment algorithms included 3 decision criteria (comorbidities, performance status and age) and 5 treatment options: FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine mono and best supportive care. We identified multiple decision criteria relevant to all participating centers. We found consensus for the treatment of young (age below 65) patients with good performance status with FOLFIRINOX. For patients with increasing age and reducing performance status there was a decreasing trend to use gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel. Gemcitabine monotherapy was typically offered to patients in the presence of comorbidities. For patients with ECOG 3-4, most of the experts recommended BSC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Treatment options for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer depend on various factors, including performance status, tumor burden and patient preferences. Metastatic pancreatic cancer is incurable and many systemic treatment options have been investigated over the past decades. This analysis of patterns of practice was performed to identify decision criteria and their impact on the choice of first-line management of metastatic pancreatic cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Members of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) Gastrointestinal Cancer Group were contacted and agreed to participate in this analysis. Decision trees for the first line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer from 9 centers in Switzerland were collected and analyzed based on the objective consensus methodology to identify consensus and discrepancies in clinical decision-making.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The final treatment algorithms included 3 decision criteria (comorbidities, performance status and age) and 5 treatment options: FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine mono and best supportive care.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We identified multiple decision criteria relevant to all participating centers. We found consensus for the treatment of young (age below 65) patients with good performance status with FOLFIRINOX. For patients with increasing age and reducing performance status there was a decreasing trend to use gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel. Gemcitabine monotherapy was typically offered to patients in the presence of comorbidities. For patients with ECOG 3-4, most of the experts recommended BSC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32299764
pii: S1424-3903(20)30103-4
doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.03.012
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
686-690Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest Dr. Putora received an educational grant from Celgene (educational grant to the Institution). All other authors have no conflict of interest.