The use of GTX as second-line and later chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis
- 173 Downloads
There are limited data regarding the role of second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) after the failure of initial chemotherapy. No data exist on the use of GTX after the failure of first-line therapy.
Patients and methods
We identified patients who were given GTX chemotherapy for a diagnosis of mPC after the failure of initial therapy. Demographic features, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), response to treatment, and toxicities were recorded.
The 59 evaluable patients received a median of 2 prior therapies. Three had no prior gemcitabine. Median PS was 1. Median survival was 22 weeks; progression-free survival was 9.9 weeks. Survival did not correlate with the number of prior regimens but trended with PS. There were no radiologic responses; those with stable disease (n = 21) had a better survival than those with progression (n = 29) or unevaluable patients (n = 9). Median survival was 38.3, 15.0, and 7.4 weeks, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included leucopenia (n = 14), anemia (n = 7), and thrombocytopenia (n = 6). Hospitalizations were required in 21 patients, for febrile neutropenia (n = 7), non-neutropenic infection (n = 3), pulmonary embolus (n = 2), anemia or failure to thrive (n = 9). A 75% drop or more in CA 19-9 correlated with improved survival.
GTX is an active regimen in patients previously treated with gemcitabine for mPC. Better performance status and >75% drop in pretreatment CA 19-9 were associated with longer survival. The number of prior regimens did not predict for survival duration.
KeywordsPancreatic cancer Chemotherapy Adenocarcinoma Survival
This research is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health through MD Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant CA016672. Dr. Wolff received the Research Funding from Eli Lilly.
- 5.Herrmann R, Bodoky G, Ruhstaller T et al (2007) Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 25:2212–2217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Poplin E, Feng Y, Berlin J et al (2009) Phase III, randomized study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin versus gemcitabine (fixed-dose rate infusion) compared with gemcitabine (30 minute infusion) in patients with pancreatic carcinoma E6201: A trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 27:3778–3785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Stathopoulos GP, Syrigos K, Aravantinos G et al (2006) A multicenter phase III trial comparing irinotecan-gemcitabine (IG) with gemcitabine (G) monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 95(5):587–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Louvet C, Labianca R, Hammel P et al (2005) Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: results of a GERCOR and GISCAD phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 23(15):3509–3516Google Scholar
- 9.Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J et al (2007) Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 25(15):1960–1966Google Scholar
- 10.Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M et al (2010) Randomized phase III trial comparing FOLFIRINOX (F: 5FU/Leucovorin [LV], irinotecan [I], and oxaliplatin [O]) versus gemcitabine (G) as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA): Preplanned interim analysis results of the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 trial. J Clin Oncol 28:15s (suppl; abstr 4010)Google Scholar
- 17.Gebbia V, Maiello E, Giuliani F et al (2007) Second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic carcinoma: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale on the activity and safety of the FOLFOX4 regimen in clinical practice. Ann Oncol 18(6):vi124–27Google Scholar
- 19.Yoo C, Hwang JY, Kim JE, Kim TW, Lee JS, Park DH, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ, Kim SC, Lee JL (2009) A randomized phase II study of modified FOLFIRI.3 vs modified FOLFOX as second line therapy in patients with gemcitabine refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 101:1658–1663Google Scholar