Cargando…
Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis ai...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520876/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959763 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers11040484 |
_version_ | 1783418829986070528 |
---|---|
author | Pusceddu, Sara Ghidini, Michele Torchio, Martina Corti, Francesca Tomasello, Gianluca Niger, Monica Prinzi, Natalie Nichetti, Federico Coinu, Andrea Di Bartolomeo, Maria Cabiddu, Mary Passalacqua, Rodolfo de Braud, Filippo Petrelli, Fausto |
author_facet | Pusceddu, Sara Ghidini, Michele Torchio, Martina Corti, Francesca Tomasello, Gianluca Niger, Monica Prinzi, Natalie Nichetti, Federico Coinu, Andrea Di Bartolomeo, Maria Cabiddu, Mary Passalacqua, Rodolfo de Braud, Filippo Petrelli, Fausto |
author_sort | Pusceddu, Sara |
collection | PubMed |
description | Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX in terms of safety and effectiveness, taking into account data from real-life studies on mPC. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library up to November 2018 to identify retrospective or cohort studies on mPC comparing GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX. We included 16 retrospective studies, including 3813 patients (2123 treated with GEM-NAB and 1690 treated with FOLFIRINOX). Despite a median weighted overall survival (OS) difference in favor of FOLFIRINOX (mean difference: 1.15, 95% confidence interval CI 0.08–2.22, p = 0.03), in whole population OS was similar (hazard ratio (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.84–1.16; p = 0.9). PFS was also not different between the two arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71–1.1; p = 0.26). The overall response rate was similar (25 vs. 24% with GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX). Among grade 3–4 toxicities, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were lower with GEM-NAB, while neurotoxicity and anemia were lower with FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, despite a numerically longer median OS with FOLFIRINOX as compared to GEM-NAB, the overall risk of death and progression were similar. Their toxicity was different with less nausea, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia with GEM-NAB, as compared to less neurotoxicity and anemia with FOLFIRINOX. Therefore, analysis of non-randomized “real world” studies to date has not provided evidence of a major benefit of one regimen over the other. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6520876 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65208762019-05-31 Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Pusceddu, Sara Ghidini, Michele Torchio, Martina Corti, Francesca Tomasello, Gianluca Niger, Monica Prinzi, Natalie Nichetti, Federico Coinu, Andrea Di Bartolomeo, Maria Cabiddu, Mary Passalacqua, Rodolfo de Braud, Filippo Petrelli, Fausto Cancers (Basel) Review Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX in terms of safety and effectiveness, taking into account data from real-life studies on mPC. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library up to November 2018 to identify retrospective or cohort studies on mPC comparing GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX. We included 16 retrospective studies, including 3813 patients (2123 treated with GEM-NAB and 1690 treated with FOLFIRINOX). Despite a median weighted overall survival (OS) difference in favor of FOLFIRINOX (mean difference: 1.15, 95% confidence interval CI 0.08–2.22, p = 0.03), in whole population OS was similar (hazard ratio (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.84–1.16; p = 0.9). PFS was also not different between the two arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71–1.1; p = 0.26). The overall response rate was similar (25 vs. 24% with GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX). Among grade 3–4 toxicities, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were lower with GEM-NAB, while neurotoxicity and anemia were lower with FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, despite a numerically longer median OS with FOLFIRINOX as compared to GEM-NAB, the overall risk of death and progression were similar. Their toxicity was different with less nausea, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia with GEM-NAB, as compared to less neurotoxicity and anemia with FOLFIRINOX. Therefore, analysis of non-randomized “real world” studies to date has not provided evidence of a major benefit of one regimen over the other. MDPI 2019-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6520876/ /pubmed/30959763 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers11040484 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Pusceddu, Sara Ghidini, Michele Torchio, Martina Corti, Francesca Tomasello, Gianluca Niger, Monica Prinzi, Natalie Nichetti, Federico Coinu, Andrea Di Bartolomeo, Maria Cabiddu, Mary Passalacqua, Rodolfo de Braud, Filippo Petrelli, Fausto Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | comparative effectiveness of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and folfirinox in the first-line setting of metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520876/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959763 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers11040484 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pusceddusara comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ghidinimichele comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT torchiomartina comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cortifrancesca comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tomasellogianluca comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nigermonica comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT prinzinatalie comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nichettifederico comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT coinuandrea comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT dibartolomeomaria comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cabiddumary comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT passalacquarodolfo comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT debraudfilippo comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT petrellifausto comparativeeffectivenessofgemcitabineplusnabpaclitaxelandfolfirinoxinthefirstlinesettingofmetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |