Meta-analysis examining overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with second-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based therapy after failing first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy: effect of performance status and comparison with other regimens.


Journal

BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 Jul 2020
Historique:
received: 20 02 2020
accepted: 25 06 2020
entrez: 10 7 2020
pubmed: 10 7 2020
medline: 30 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and few choices of therapy. For patients with adequate performance status, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are preferred first-line treatment. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy (e.g. FOLFIRI, OFF, or FOLFOX) are often used in patients who previously received gemcitabine-based regimens. A systematic review was conducted of the safety and efficacy of FOLFOX for metastatic pancreatic cancer following prior gemcitabine-based therapy. A Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis with adjustment of patient performance status (PS) was conducted to evaluate overall survival (OS) and compare outcomes with nanoliposomal irinotecan combination therapy. PubMed.gov , FDA.gov , ClinicalTrials.gov , congress abstracts, Cochrane.org library, and EMBASE database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of advanced/metastatic disease, prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and second-line treatment with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. The database search dates were January 1, 1990-June 30, 2019. Endpoints were OS and severe treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Trial-level PS scores were standardized by converting Karnofsky grade scores to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Grade, and overall study-weighted PS was calculated based on weighted average of all patients. Of 282 studies identified, 11 randomized controlled trials (N = 454) were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline weighted PS scores predicted OS in 10 of the 11 studies, and calculated PS scores of 1.0 were associated with a median OS of 6.3 months (95% posterior interval, 5.4-7.4). After adjusting for baseline PS, FOLFOX had a similar treatment effect profile (median OS, range 2.6-6.7 months) as 5-FU/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy (median OS, 6.1 months; 95% confidence interval 4.8-8.9). Neutropenia and fatigue were the most commonly reported Grade 3-4 TRAEs associated with FOLFOX. Baseline PS is a strong prognostic factor when interpreting the efficacy of 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapy of pancreatic cancer after progression on first-line gemcitabine-based regimens. When baseline PS is considered, FOLFOX has a similar treatment effect as 5-FU and nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy and a comparable safety profile. These findings suggest that 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapies remain an acceptable and alternative second-line treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer and adequate PS (e.g. ECOG 0-1) following gemcitabine treatment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and few choices of therapy. For patients with adequate performance status, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are preferred first-line treatment. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy (e.g. FOLFIRI, OFF, or FOLFOX) are often used in patients who previously received gemcitabine-based regimens. A systematic review was conducted of the safety and efficacy of FOLFOX for metastatic pancreatic cancer following prior gemcitabine-based therapy. A Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis with adjustment of patient performance status (PS) was conducted to evaluate overall survival (OS) and compare outcomes with nanoliposomal irinotecan combination therapy.
METHODS METHODS
PubMed.gov , FDA.gov , ClinicalTrials.gov , congress abstracts, Cochrane.org library, and EMBASE database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of advanced/metastatic disease, prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and second-line treatment with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. The database search dates were January 1, 1990-June 30, 2019. Endpoints were OS and severe treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Trial-level PS scores were standardized by converting Karnofsky grade scores to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Grade, and overall study-weighted PS was calculated based on weighted average of all patients.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 282 studies identified, 11 randomized controlled trials (N = 454) were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline weighted PS scores predicted OS in 10 of the 11 studies, and calculated PS scores of 1.0 were associated with a median OS of 6.3 months (95% posterior interval, 5.4-7.4). After adjusting for baseline PS, FOLFOX had a similar treatment effect profile (median OS, range 2.6-6.7 months) as 5-FU/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy (median OS, 6.1 months; 95% confidence interval 4.8-8.9). Neutropenia and fatigue were the most commonly reported Grade 3-4 TRAEs associated with FOLFOX.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Baseline PS is a strong prognostic factor when interpreting the efficacy of 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapy of pancreatic cancer after progression on first-line gemcitabine-based regimens. When baseline PS is considered, FOLFOX has a similar treatment effect as 5-FU and nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy and a comparable safety profile. These findings suggest that 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapies remain an acceptable and alternative second-line treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer and adequate PS (e.g. ECOG 0-1) following gemcitabine treatment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32641104
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07110-x
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07110-x
pmc: PMC7346629
doi:

Substances chimiques

Organoplatinum Compounds 0
Oxaliplatin 04ZR38536J
Deoxycytidine 0W860991D6
Leucovorin Q573I9DVLP
Fluorouracil U3P01618RT
Gemcitabine 0

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

633

Références

Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
World J Oncol. 2019 Feb;10(1):10-27
pubmed: 30834048
Ann Oncol. 2007 Jun;18 Suppl 6:vi124-7
pubmed: 17591805
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):317-327
pubmed: 31157963
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Dec;50(18):3116-24
pubmed: 25454414
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 20;36(24):2545-2556
pubmed: 29791286
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 31;369(18):1691-703
pubmed: 24131140
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;34(32):3914-3920
pubmed: 27621395
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 7;13(12):e0208557
pubmed: 30532127
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;3(4):516-522
pubmed: 27978579
N Engl J Med. 2011 May 12;364(19):1817-25
pubmed: 21561347
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 May;26(5):1503-1511
pubmed: 30652227
Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):545-557
pubmed: 26615328
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2013 Jul;6(4):321-37
pubmed: 23814611
Exp Ther Med. 2012 Mar;3(3):423-432
pubmed: 22969906
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 10;32(23):2423-9
pubmed: 24982456
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2013 Sep;44(3):313-7
pubmed: 23606201
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Mar 15;24(6):1326-1336
pubmed: 29367431
Br J Cancer. 2009 Nov 17;101(10):1658-63
pubmed: 19826418
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jul;47(11):1676-81
pubmed: 21565490
Onkologie. 2009 Mar;32(3):99-102
pubmed: 19295247
Hepatogastroenterology. 2012 Nov-Dec;59(120):2635-9
pubmed: 22534542
Int J Biol Markers. 2019 Dec;34(4):373-380
pubmed: 31608800
Invest New Drugs. 2005 Aug;23(4):369-75
pubmed: 16012797
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug 21;20(31):10802-12
pubmed: 25152583
BMC Cancer. 2014 Jun 14;14:441
pubmed: 24929865
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Anticancer Res. 2012 Nov;32(11):5121-6
pubmed: 23155291
Int J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct;18(5):839-46
pubmed: 22996141
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2018 Jun 22;2(4):274-281
pubmed: 30003190

Auteurs

Zev A Wainberg (ZA)

Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. zwainberg@mednet.ucla.edu.

Kynan Feeney (K)

Notre Dame University, Fremantle and Edith Cowan University Joondalup, Perth, Australia.

Myung Ah Lee (MA)

Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.

Andrés Muñoz (A)

Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

Antonio Cubillo Gracián (AC)

HM Universitario Sanchinarro, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal HM-CIOCC, Madrid, Spain.
Departamento de Ciencias Médicas Clínicas Universidad San Pablo CEU, Madrid, Spain.

Sara Lonardi (S)

Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IRCCS, Padova, Italy.

Baek-Yeol Ryoo (BY)

Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Annie Hung (A)

ARMO Biosciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, Redwood City, CA, USA.

Yong Lin (Y)

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Johanna Bendell (J)

Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN, USA.

J Randolph Hecht (JR)

Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH