Prognostic factors for survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer in real-life practice: the ANICE-PaC study
Background Treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine increases survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. However, the assessment of treatment efficacy and safety in non-selected patients in a real-life setting may provide useful information to support decision-making processes in routine practice. Methods Retrospective, multicenter study including patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, who started first-line treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine between December 2013 and June 2015 according to routine clinical practice. In addition to describing the treatment pattern, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for the total sample and the exploratory subgroups based on the treatment and patients’ clinical characteristics. Results All 210 eligible patients had a median age of 65.0 years (range 37–81). Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma was recurrent in 46 (21.9%) patients and de novo in 164 (78.1%); 38 (18%) patients had a biliary stent. At baseline, 33 (18.1%) patients had an ECOG performance status ≥2. Patients received a median of four cycles of treatment (range 1–21), with a median duration of 3.5 months; 137 (65.2%) patients had a dose reduction of nab-paclitaxel and/or gemcitabine during treatment, and 33 (17.2%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Relative dose intensity (RDI) for nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and the combined treatment was 66.7%. Median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI 6.0–8.5), and median PFS was 5.0 months (95% CI 4.3–5.9); 50 patients achieved either a partial or complete response (ORR 24.6%). OS was influenced by baseline ECOG PS, NLR and CA 19.9, but not by age ≥ 70 years and/or the presence of hepatobiliary stent or RDI < 85%. All included variables, computed as dichotomous, showed a significant contribution to the Cox regression model to build a nomogram for predicting survival in these patients: baseline ECOG 0–1 vs. 2–3 (p = 0.030), baseline NLR > 3 vs. ≤ 3 (p = 0.043), and baseline CA 19.9 > 37 U/mL vs. ≤37 U/mL (p = 0.004). Conclusions Nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine remain effective in a real-life setting, despite the high burden of dose reductions and poorer performance of these patients. A nomogram to predict survival using baseline ECOG performance status, NLR and CA 19.9 is proposed..
Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
---|
Erscheinungsjahr: |
2018 |
---|---|
Erschienen: |
2018 |
Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
---|---|
Enthalten in: |
BMC cancer - 18(2018), 1 vom: 29. Nov. |
Sprache: |
Englisch |
---|
Beteiligte Personen: |
Fernández, Ana [VerfasserIn] |
---|
Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
---|
Themen: |
First-line chemotherapy |
---|
Anmerkungen: |
© The Author(s). 2018 |
---|
doi: |
10.1186/s12885-018-5101-3 |
---|
funding: |
|
---|---|
Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
PPN (Katalog-ID): |
OLC2100395505 |
---|
LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | OLC2100395505 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230401225329.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230401s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12885-018-5101-3 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2100395505 | ||
035 | |a (DE-He213)s12885-018-5101-3-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
100 | 1 | |a Fernández, Ana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Prognostic factors for survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer in real-life practice: the ANICE-PaC study |
264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s). 2018 | ||
520 | |a Background Treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine increases survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. However, the assessment of treatment efficacy and safety in non-selected patients in a real-life setting may provide useful information to support decision-making processes in routine practice. Methods Retrospective, multicenter study including patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, who started first-line treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine between December 2013 and June 2015 according to routine clinical practice. In addition to describing the treatment pattern, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for the total sample and the exploratory subgroups based on the treatment and patients’ clinical characteristics. Results All 210 eligible patients had a median age of 65.0 years (range 37–81). Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma was recurrent in 46 (21.9%) patients and de novo in 164 (78.1%); 38 (18%) patients had a biliary stent. At baseline, 33 (18.1%) patients had an ECOG performance status ≥2. Patients received a median of four cycles of treatment (range 1–21), with a median duration of 3.5 months; 137 (65.2%) patients had a dose reduction of nab-paclitaxel and/or gemcitabine during treatment, and 33 (17.2%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Relative dose intensity (RDI) for nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and the combined treatment was 66.7%. Median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI 6.0–8.5), and median PFS was 5.0 months (95% CI 4.3–5.9); 50 patients achieved either a partial or complete response (ORR 24.6%). OS was influenced by baseline ECOG PS, NLR and CA 19.9, but not by age ≥ 70 years and/or the presence of hepatobiliary stent or RDI < 85%. All included variables, computed as dichotomous, showed a significant contribution to the Cox regression model to build a nomogram for predicting survival in these patients: baseline ECOG 0–1 vs. 2–3 (p = 0.030), baseline NLR > 3 vs. ≤ 3 (p = 0.043), and baseline CA 19.9 > 37 U/mL vs. ≤37 U/mL (p = 0.004). Conclusions Nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine remain effective in a real-life setting, despite the high burden of dose reductions and poorer performance of these patients. A nomogram to predict survival using baseline ECOG performance status, NLR and CA 19.9 is proposed. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma | |
650 | 4 | |a Gemcitabine | |
650 | 4 | |a Nab-paclitaxel | |
650 | 4 | |a Real-life | |
650 | 4 | |a First-line chemotherapy | |
650 | 4 | |a Survival | |
700 | 1 | |a Salgado, Mercedes |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a García, Adelaida |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Buxò, Elvira |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Vera, Ruth |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Adeva, Jorge |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Jiménez-Fonseca, Paula |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Quintero, Guillermo |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Llorca, Cristina |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Cañabate, Mamen |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a López, Luis Jesús |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Muñoz, Andrés |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ramírez, Patricia |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a González, Paula |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a López, Carlos |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Reboredo, Margarita |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Gallardo, Elena |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Sanchez-Cánovas, Manuel |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Gallego, Javier |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Guillén, Carmen |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ruiz-Miravet, Nuria |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Navarro-Pérez, Víctor |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a De la Cámara, Juan |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Alés-Díaz, Inmaculada |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Pazo-Cid, Roberto Antonio |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Carmona-Bayonas, Alberto |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC cancer |d BioMed Central, 2001 |g 18(2018), 1 vom: 29. Nov. |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)326643710 |w (DE-600)2041352-X |w (DE-576)107014645 |x 1471-2407 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2018 |g number:1 |g day:29 |g month:11 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-5101-3 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2134 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2446 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 18 |j 2018 |e 1 |b 29 |c 11 |