Association between neutropenia and survival to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Neutropenia is a common side effect associated with nab-paclitaxel gemcitabine (Nab-Gem) therapy. We retrospectively investigated the association between neutropenia induced by first-line Nab-Gem and survival in metastatic pancreatic carcinoma patients. Metastatic pancreatic patients treated with first-line Nab-Gem were included in this retrospective analysis. Neutropenia was categorized using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria scale. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate. 115 patients were analyzed. Median PFS was 7 months (95% CI 5–8) for patients with grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and 6 months (95% CI 5–6) for patients with grade < 3 neutropenia [p = 0.08; hazard ratio (HR 0.68)]. Median OS was 13 months (95% CI 10–18) for patients with grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and 10 months (95% CI 8–13) for patients with grade < 3 neutropenia (p = 0.04; HR 0.44). In multivariate analysis, the occurrence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia showed a statistically significant association with OS (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.09–0.86; p = 0.05). Nab-Gem-induced neutropenia is associated with longer survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

E A Eisenhauer, P Therasse, J. Bogaerts … (2009)

Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

0 comments Cited 5490 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Thierry Conroy, Françoise Desseigne, Marc Ychou … (2011)

Data are lacking on the efficacy and safety of a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) as compared with gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We randomly assigned 342 patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of illness) to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg per square meter of body-surface area; irinotecan, 180 mg per square meter; leucovorin, 400 mg per square meter; and fluorouracil, 400 mg per square meter given as a bolus followed by 2400 mg per square meter given as a 46-hour continuous infusion, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. Six months of chemotherapy were recommended in both groups in patients who had a response. The primary end point was overall survival. The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the FOLFIRINOX group as compared with 6.8 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.73; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the FOLFIRINOX group and 3.3 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.59; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 31.6% in the FOLFIRINOX group versus 9.4% in the gemcitabine group (P<0.001). More adverse events were noted in the FOLFIRINOX group; 5.4% of patients in this group had febrile neutropenia. At 6 months, 31% of the patients in the FOLFIRINOX group had a definitive degradation of the quality of life versus 66% in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70; P<0.001). As compared with gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX was associated with a survival advantage and had increased toxicity. FOLFIRINOX is an option for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and good performance status. (Funded by the French government and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00112658.).

0 comments Cited 1243 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

Daniel Von Hoff, Thomas Ervin, Francis Arena … (2013)

In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

0 comments Cited 1181 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Giandomenico Roviello: giandomenicoroviello@hotmail.it

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Sci Rep

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Sci Rep

Title: Scientific Reports

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 2045-2322

Publication date (Electronic): 6 November 2020

Publication date PMC-release: 6 November 2020

Publication date Collection: 2020

Volume: 10

Electronic Location Identifier: 19281

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.8404.8, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 2304, Department of Health Sciences, , University of Florence, ; viale Pieraccini, 6, 50139 Florence, Italy

[2 ]GRID grid.5133.4, ISNI 0000 0001 1941 4308, Oncology Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical, and Health Sciences, , University of Trieste, ; Piazza Ospitale, Trieste, Italy

[3 ]GRID grid.8404.8, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 2304, School of Human Health Sciences, , University of Florence, ; Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy

[4 ]GRID grid.7340.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2162 1699, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, , University of Bath, ; Bath, BA2 7AY UK

[5 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Onco-Hematology, IRCCS-CROB, Referral Cancer Center of Basilicata, via Padre Pio 1, 85028 Rionero, Vulture, PZ Italy

[6 ]GRID grid.24704.35, ISNI 0000 0004 1759 9494, Translational Oncology Unit, , University Hospital Careggi, ; Firenze, Toscana Italy

[7 ]GRID grid.9024.f, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 4641, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, Medical Oncology Unit, , University of Siena, Viale Bracci-Policlinico “Le Scotte”, ; 53100 Siena, Italy

Article

Publisher ID: 76465

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76465-9

PMC ID: 7648798

PubMed ID: 33159172

SO-VID: acb697b1-2f6e-41b0-b6c5-b7c0792ae184

License:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Date received : 16 June 2020

Date accepted : 28 October 2020

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized

Keywords: cancer,cancer therapy,chemotherapy

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized

Keywords: cancer, cancer therapy, chemotherapy

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 5

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 525

See all reference authors

Association between neutropenia and survival to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Karger: Oncology

Most cited references 24

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 991

Cited by 5

Most referenced authors 525